I Need A Lawyer

May was resolute in her decision to pursue legal action against David Stevenson, the manufacturer behind the contaminated ginger beer. She was determined that she would get compensation for the physical discomfort and psychological anguish she had endured.

However, the path to justice was fraught with complexity. Suing Stevenson was going to be a huge challenge, particularly for a pauper with only five pounds to her name. That's when May found Walter Leechman, a solicitor from Glasgow known for his acumen in personal injury claims. 

Leechman, who embraced a no win, no fee approach, was not just willing but eager to take on her case. He had recently been involved in two slightly similar cases, which he had lost, but he was determined to carve out new territory in the realm of tort law.... and of course seek justified damages for May Donoghue.

The ambitious lawyer briefly introduced May to the complexities of torts.  They were all about actions or omissions leading to harm or injury - about trespass, nuisance, defamation, and negligence. 

Trespass involves direct interference with another's person or property without consent. Nuisance, on the other hand, is about indirect interference, where actions disrupt someone's peaceful existence. Defamation is about harm to reputation through false statements... and then there is NEGLIGENCE. 

Negligence, according to Leechman, was the cornerstone of their case. It comprised four elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damage. 

Duty of care is the foundational principle, the idea that you must act with consideration for others who might be affected by your actions. Breach of duty is the failure to uphold this standard, through an act of omission or commission that falls short of what is reasonably expected.

Causation links the breach to the harm suffered - a chain of events that needs to be established with precision. Finally, damage refers to the actual harm incurred - the tangible and intangible losses that result from the breach.

Their legal strategy hinged on proving that Stevenson had breached his duty of care by allowing a snail to contaminate the ginger beer, leading directly to May's illness and distress. However, the concept of duty of care between a manufacturer and a consumer was vague, lacking clear legal precedent to guide their way.

Leechman's legal attack was to focus on the gap in the law that left consumers vulnerable. This was rooted in the doctrine of privity of contract, which meant that May's direct legal recourse against Stevenson was obstructed by the fact that she had not purchased the ginger beer directly from him - her friend was the purchaser.

Undaunted, Leechman proposed a novel approach, arguing for a duty of care based on the principles of foreseeability and proximity. It was an ambitious argument, seeking to establish a direct link of responsibility between Stevenson and May, irrespective of the traditional contractual relationships.

May and Leechman were acutely aware of the precedential weight their case carried. It was not just a fight for justice for May, but for the rights of consumers at large. The irony was not lost on them: a simple single, unassuming little snail in a bottle of ginger beer could potentially redefine the contours of tort law and challenge entrenched legal doctrines.

The journey ahead promised to be arduous, but they were emboldened by the prospect of effecting legal change as they headed off to Edinburgh and the Court of Session.