Duty Of Care Case Study

‘It has been observed that a person “is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them” . Before the twentieth century, there was no duty of care towards people to ensure that they were not injured by one’s carelessness or neglect, unless the object was usually considered dangerous. Only in certain relationships did a Duty of Care exist, for example a Doctor-Patient relationship. A change in the Duty of Care came about in the case of MacPherson v Buick 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916). In this case, Cardozo J proposed a new approach, ‘If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature

The contract was between her friend and the shop owner. However, as the bottle was not clear, the shop owner could not inspect it. Therefore, it was not the fault of the café owner. The Defendant argued that there was no duty of care towards Mrs Donoghue as there was no contract between them. They used the judgement in the case of Winterbottom V Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109. In Winterbottom V Wright , it was decided that no duty of care existed between the defendant and the plaintiff as there was no contract in existence. In Donoghue V Stevenson , it was decided that a manufacturer owes a duty of care towards the consumer where the defect in question is a latent defect. In this case, the bottle which contained the snail was a dark brown, opaque bottle which could not be inspected by Mrs Donoghue. It was found then that the defect was a latent defect. As well as this, Lord Atkin decided to move away from the traditional law as he saw it as too restrictive and ultimately unfair, ‘in addressing the question whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care, Lord Atkin declared that everyone owed such a duty to his “neighbour”,’ Lord Atkin came up with a new principle for determining whether or not a duty of care exists, called the ‘Neighbour