The Development of Negligence Law: Landmark Cases and the Duty of Care, Study notes of Law

Download The Development of Negligence Law: Landmark Cases and the Duty of Care and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! Example of the Development of Court Made Law The development of negligence, in particular, the duty of care and native title are examples of precedents at work. Development of the Law of Negligence The development of Negligence in the last hundred and fifty years provides a good illustration of the role of analogy in the case law process. The law gradually accepted a category of things dangerous in themselves. During the 19th Century, manufactures had no liability for the goods they made. The liability of manufactures for the losses suffered by the consumers took several decades to be established. Case 1:Langridge v Levy (1837) – The exploding gun (affirming the status quo) A man purchased a gun from a gun maker, warranted to be safe. The man’s son used the gun and one of the barrels exploded, resulting in the mutilation of the son’s hand. As the son did not buy the gun there was no remedy in contract law. The court was asked to consider if the son could sue the gun seller or manufacturer, and if so what for. Court said he could not sue:  In contract he did not buy the gun  For negligence because it did not exist in law, (and court was reluctant to change the existing law). He could however sue fro fraud. The gun was warranted to be safe, when in fact it was not. The seller knowingly made a false statement. Case 2: Winterbottom v Wright (1842) – The broken axel (limited duty considered) Defendant had contracted with the Post Master General to put a coach in good repair. The driver of the coach was injured when the axel broke and he was thrown from the coach. The court was asked to consider if the driver had any claim against the Post Master General or the Coach Repairer. The court ruled the driver had no action against either the Post Master General or the Coach Repairer for breach of contract. The court also said that they could not consider negligence because the contract was between the Post Master General and the Coach Repairer. Lord Aitken said: “The duty of the defendant under the contract with the Postmaster General could only have involved such direct relations with the servant of the persons whom the Postmaster General employed to drive the coach as would give rise to a duty of care owed to such servant.” This was a step towards the concept of negligence. Case 3: George v Skivington (1896) –Negligently manufactured Hair-wash A man brought hair-wash from the seller/manufacturer for use by his wife. His wife suffered hair-loss and a scalp disorder. As his wife was not a party to the contract she could not make a claim under the contract. Although the court did say that the duty under the contract should extend to those whom the seller knew would be using the product. Plaintiff successful because the seller/manufacture knew the product was negligently made and was going to be used by someone other that the purchaser. The judge substituted the word negligence for fraud and maintained that the circumstances were close enough to Langridge v Levy to follow the decision in that case. Case 4: Heaven v Pender (1883) – Enter at your own risk (reasonable foreseeability) A ships painter was injured when a platform slung over the side of the ship which he was standing collapsed. The platform was faulty. The painter was employed by Gray that had been contracted to do the painting by the ships owner to paint the ship. Gray had then entered into a contract with Pender the dock owner to supply the platform. The court of Appeal was asked to consider if the defendant (Pender) owed a duty of care to a person who was to use the platform. The court ruled that a duty of care was owed to the person who was to use the platform, especially as it was during his employment. Court went further saying as obiter dictum: “It is undoubted, however, that there may be the obligation of such a duty from one person to another although there is no contract between them with regard to such duty.” Case 5: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) – The snail in the bottle (duty of care created) Donoghue and her friend stopped for a drink at a café. The friend ordered the drinks and paid for them. The drink , ginger beer was supplied in a dark opaque bottle. Donoghue filled her glass and drank some of the contents. As she poured the rest of the contents out of the bottle a partially decomposed snail fell out of the bottle into the glass. Donoghue became very ill, suffering nausea, gastro-enteritis and shock. She sued the manufacturer for damages in negligence. Lord Atkin applied a new rule of law to this case: ”The duty of care”. Stating: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - the person who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being to affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” The law placed on the manufacturer a direct duty of care to the