Law of Negligence: Elements, Defenses and Case Analysis

1
Contents
Solution............................................................................................................................................2
The law of negligence......................................................................................................................2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
The three elements of the law of negligence................................................................................2
Duty of care..............................................................................................................................3
Breach of the duty....................................................................................................................3
Damages...................................................................................................................................4
Lack of quality in the goods does not in itself give rise to negligence liability...........................4
Defenses.......................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................6
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................7

2
Solution
The law of negligence
Introduction
The negligence law is a tortious law which aims at imposing duty upon a person to act in a
responsible manner and to take precautions so that no injury is caused by him to others. The
three factors which are needed for a successful claim of negligence includes the duty of care
upon the defendant, the non compliance of the duty by the defendant and the resultant damages
that are suffered by the plaintiff because of such breach on the part of the defendant. However,
the damages imposed upon the businesses can be at times proving to be very expensive. This
requires that the businesses must have knowledge of the law so that they can minimize their risk
associated with the negligence.1
The above statement is analyzed in the light of series of cases.
The three elements of the law of negligence
It is submitted that any plaintiff who intends to bring an act of negligence upon the defendant,
then in order to have a successful claim, there is a need to prove three factors against the
defendant. The same are evaluated with the help of two cases, Donoghue v Stevenson2 and
Barnett v Packer3.
In Donoghue v Stevenson, Mrs Donoghue's friend purchased a ginger beer from a café. The
friend consumed the container which as of opaque glass. When remains of the beer were poured
in the glass, the rotten leftovers of the snail floated out. This resulted causing injuries. Mrs
Donoghue brought proceedings under the law of tort against Stevenson, the manufacturer of the
beer4.
The main issue that is dealt by the House of Lords was whether the manufacturer of the beer was
held to be negligent and if yes, then, what are the main elements that are required to prove any
person negligence as per the tort law5.
In few earlier cases6 it was held that if there is no contract, then, there is no duty of care that can
be imposed upon the manufacturer unless the manufacturer is aware that the product provided by
1 Rouch Lee. Business law. (2017, Fourth edition, Oxford university press).
2 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932, HL)
3 Barnett v Packer (1940).
4 Matthew Chapman.'The Snail and the Ginger Beer: The Singular Case of Donoghue v Stevenson '(Law Report Annual Lecture,
07 July 2010).
5 The law Teacher. The doctrine of negligence. 2018. <2018. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/donoghue-v-stevenson.php>.

3
him to the consumer is defective and the same is concealed deliberately by the manufacturer
from the consumer or when the consumer is inherently dangerous and the manufacturer did not
communicate the same to the consumer7.
The main ratio of the case establishes that in order to prove negligence the main components that
are required includes
Duty of care
Every defendant owns duty of care provided
Neighborhood principle
This is the primary outcome of the decisions of the Donoghue case and it was stated by Lord
Atkin that any person who can be affected by the acts of the defendant is the neighbor of the
defendant and he owns a duty of care against those persons. In Barnett v Packer8, an assistant
was putting chocolates for display and he was injured because of a wire, the court held that the
manufacturer owns a duty towards the assistant and also to the persons who intent to ate the
chocolates and suffers injuries from any foreign bodies. Thus, the said case is the extension of
the Donoghue case and submits that a bystander who is not having any relationship with the
person who is part of the prime transaction can be held to be the neighbor of the manufacturer.9
Reasonable forseeability
The duty is against those neighbors who are reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
Breach of the duty
The duty which is imposed on the defendant must be breached by the defendant by not
complying with the echelon of heed that is anticipated from the defendant in the akin to
situation10.
Damages
The plaintiff must be affected by the breach of duty on the part of the defendant and must face
some kind of harm. The harm which is caused to the plaintiff is because of the acts of the
defendant. Thus, there must be but for test applied before holding the defendant negligent. Also
the loss should be anticipated by the defendant reasonably and should not be remote in nature.
6 Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd 1929 S.C. 461, 1929 S.L.T. 341. Levy v Langridge 150 E.R. 1458, (1838) 4 M. & W. 337.
Frederick Longmeid and Eliza his Wife v Holliday 155 E.R. 752, (1851) 6 Ex. 761.
7 Heaven v Pender (t/a West India Graving Dock Co) (1882-83) L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 503, CA.
8 Barnett vPacker (1940).
9Stennett v Hancock (1940); Emily Finch and Stefan Fafinski. Legal Skills. (OUP Oxford, 30-May-2013).
10 David Kelly, Ruby Hammer and John Hendy. Business law. (2017, third edition, Routledge.