Duty Of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson established the principle of the 'Duty of Care', i.e. that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably harm another person who is closely and directly affected by their actions. The principle is based on the neighbour (UK) or neighbor (US) test formulated by Lord Atkin, who said:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbo(u)r. Who, then, in law is my neighbo(u)r? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”

The tort of negligence applies to a person who breaches their duty of care to another person and causes them injury or loss.

The tort is based on four elements:

Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damage.

 It is also flexible and adaptable to different situations and circumstances.

Donoghue v Stevenson expanded the scope and application of negligence beyond contractual relationships and physical contact. It enabled consumers to sue manufacturers for defective products. 

The judgment in the case on the law of negligence was also controversial and contentious. It provoked criticism and praise from the legal profession, the media, and the public. It sparked debate and discussion on the role and function of the law. It inspired further research and development on the law of torts.

Donoghue v Stevenson also had a huge impact on the development and evolution of the law of negligence in other common law jurisdictions worldwide. It was followed or applied by courts in Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, United States, and others.

However, its main impact in an ever-changing world was its long-term and continuing influence on the development and evolution of other areas of law that are naturally influenced by the law of negligence. These include the law of product liability, consumer protection, professional negligence, medical negligence, public authority liability, occupiers’ liability, nuisance, defamation, privacy, human rights, environmental law, and others.

It also had a significant impact on the development and evolution of other disciplines that were related or influenced by the law of negligence. Yes, it has influenced economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, ethics, politics, history, literature, art, culture, education, science, technology, medicine, health, environment, and others.

So, it is clear that the judgment of the House of Lords was not only a landmark decision but also a source of huge impact and influence. It not only changed the law - it changed  the world!

Oh... so you want some examples of cases where Donoghue v Stevenson was specifically applied? 

Okay, here are just a few of the hundreds if not thousands of cases where Donoghue v Stevenson has been cited:

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85: This case involved a man who bought underwear that contained an excess amount of sulphite that caused him dermatitis. He sued both the retailer and the manufacturer for negligence. The Privy Council applied Donoghue v Stevenson and held that both parties owed him a duty of care as they could reasonably foresee that he would wear the underwear without washing it first. 

Who wouldn't?

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 231: This case involved a man who dived into a harbo(u)r at night and injured his head on an underwater obstruction. He sued the harbo(u)r owner for negligence for failing to warn him or remove the obstruction. The Court of Appeal applied Donoghue v Stevenson and held that there was no duty of care as he was acting unreasonably and voluntarily assumed the risk.

He didn't do it again!

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] UKHL 17: This case involved a couple who had an unwanted child after a failed vasectomy operation performed by a doctor. They sued the doctor for negligence for failing to carry out the operation properly. The House of Lords applied Donoghue v Stevenson and held that there was a duty of care but only for the costs associated with the pregnancy and birth, not for raising or maintaining the child.

Or putting him through law school!