Straight outta law school...
D v S is perhaps the most famous case in legal history, establishing modern principles of the 'duty of care' owed by manufacturers to avoid harm to their customers. The 'neighbour principle', whereby you must avoid harm towards your neighbours (those who could be affected by your actions), has had an immeasurable impact on the modern law of torts.
And yet, reading the judgement, there is evidence that you could construct a case, on the facts, that goes the other way: that the manufacturer didn't owe Mary Donoghue anything beyond what they did, based on prior precedent, the fact that she didn't buy the ginger beer, and that it was beyond their reasonable powers to inspect for a snail. (I mean, seriously: a snail?)
So I posit: what if Donoghue v Stevenson had been decided differently, or not at all? What if 'buyer beware' continued to be a major principle of contract and civil law? What if you really did have to look very, very closely at your ginger ale before sipping?
D v S is perhaps the most famous case in legal history, establishing modern principles of the 'duty of care' owed by manufacturers to avoid harm to their customers. The 'neighbour principle', whereby you must avoid harm towards your neighbours (those who could be affected by your actions), has had an immeasurable impact on the modern law of torts.
And yet, reading the judgement, there is evidence that you could construct a case, on the facts, that goes the other way: that the manufacturer didn't owe Mary Donoghue anything beyond what they did, based on prior precedent, the fact that she didn't buy the ginger beer, and that it was beyond their reasonable powers to inspect for a snail. (I mean, seriously: a snail?)
So I posit: what if Donoghue v Stevenson had been decided differently, or not at all? What if 'buyer beware' continued to be a major principle of contract and civil law? What if you really did have to look very, very closely at your ginger ale before sipping?