Syllabus Topic
Option 1: Consumers
The nature of consumer law
Case Study 1: Donoghue v Stevenson
Key Facts
- Incident: On August 26, 1928, Mrs. Donoghue drank ginger beer at a café in Paisley, served in an opaque bottle. Upon pouring the remaining contents, she discovered a decomposed snail, resulting in severe gastro-enteritis.
- Legal Issue: Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer, David Stevenson, despite lacking a direct contractual relationship with him.
- Judge's Findings: The House of Lords ruled 3-2 in favor of Mrs. Donoghue. Lord Atkin established the "neighbour principle," asserting that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers to prevent foreseeable harm.
Case Effect
- Consumer Protection: Donoghue v Stevenson redefined negligence, expanding its scope beyond contractual relationships. This case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to ensure their products' safety for end consumers.
- Legal Precedent: The decision laid the foundation for modern negligence law, emphasizing that duty of care is based on foreseeability, proximity, and fairness. It significantly influenced personal injury and product liability laws, reinforcing consumer rights and safety standards.
Case Study 2: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Key Facts
- Incident: Dr. Grant developed severe dermatitis after wearing woolen underwear purchased from John Martin & Co. The underwear contained excessive sulfur compounds.
- Legal Issue: Whether the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, owed a duty of care to Dr. Grant in the absence of a direct contract and if they were negligent in preparing the garments.
- Court's Finding: The court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer and was liable for negligence due to the latent defect in the underwear.
Case Effect
- Negligence and Duty of Care: The case affirmed that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, extending beyond food and medicine to all consumer goods.
- Latent Defects: It established that manufacturers are liable for injuries caused by latent defects, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure product safety.
- Consumer Protection: The decision reinforced the importance of protecting consumers from harm due to negligence, highlighting the manufacturer's obligation to prevent foreseeable injuries.
- Legal Precedent: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills broadened the application of negligence principles, strengthening consumer rights and safety by holding manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sources
Law Teacher: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Oxbridge Notes: Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
