Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    The Case Group II

    Uploaded by

    Martha Winda Rizky Sianipar
    1. Donoghue v. Stevenson was a landmark case that established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care. It involved a woman who found a decomposing snail in her ginger beer and sued the manufacturer. 2. The judge, Lord Atkin, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the "neighbor principle" that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers. This allowed consumers to sue manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products even without a direct contract. 3. The ruling became an important legal precedent and established the foundation of modern consumer protection law in the UK by giving consumers more power to seek compensation when harmed by defective products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Case Group II

    Uploaded by

    Martha Winda Rizky Sianipar
    60 views15 pages
    1. Donoghue v. Stevenson was a landmark case that established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care. It involved a woman who found a decomposing snail in her ginger beer and sued the manufacturer. 2. The judge, Lord Atkin, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the "neighbor principle" that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers. This allowed consumers to sue manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products even without a direct contract. 3. The ruling became an important legal precedent and established the foundation of modern consumer protection law in the UK by giving consumers more power to seek compensation when harmed by defective products.

    Original Title

    PPT - The Case Group II

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Donoghue v. Stevenson was a landmark case that established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care. It involved a woman who found a decomposing snail in her ginger beer and sued the manufacturer. 2. The judge, Lord Atkin, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the "neighbor principle" that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers. This allowed consumers to sue manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products even without a direct contract. 3. The ruling became an important legal precedent and established the foundation of modern consumer protection law in the UK by giving consumers more power to seek compensation when harmed by defective products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    60 views15 pages

    The Case Group II

    Uploaded by

    Martha Winda Rizky Sianipar
    1. Donoghue v. Stevenson was a landmark case that established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care. It involved a woman who found a decomposing snail in her ginger beer and sued the manufacturer. 2. The judge, Lord Atkin, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the "neighbor principle" that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to consumers. This allowed consumers to sue manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products even without a direct contract. 3. The ruling became an important legal precedent and established the foundation of modern consumer protection law in the UK by giving consumers more power to seek compensation when harmed by defective products.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 15

    Case Examination Task

    Snail in the Bottle :

    Donoghue v. Stevenson (1982)


    GROUP
    MEMBERS
    Putu George Matthew Simbolon - 1840050100

    Martha Winda Risky - 1640050194

    Desindri Tiurma Angelina - 1840050076

    Rr. Wedya Atmaja Melati E. - 1840050168

    Ester Oktaviani Refwalu - 1840050190

    Niko Syahputra Pramono - 1840050003


    Parties Identification

    1 May Donoghue, shop assistant from glaslow that ordered a ginger


    beer float hereinafter mentioned as the Plaintiff;

    Mr. David Stevenson, manufacturer of the ginger beer hereinafter


    2 mentioned as the Defendant
    Related Facts :
    Parties Identification
    1 Plaintiff was bought a glass of ginger beer float by her friend;

    2 After consuming most of the float mentioned above, Plaintiff discovered that the float contained a
    decomposing snail;
    3 Plaintiff did not discovered this earlier due to the fact that the bottle was not made of clear glass;
    Plaintiff filed a lawsuit toward the Defendant due to the shock and severe gastroenteritis suffered by the
    4 Plaintiff herself;
    In that time, Plaintiff could not filed a lawsuit under the circumstances in a form of Breach of Contract due to
    5 the absence of contractual agreement between Plaintiff and Claimant;
    Related Facts :

    1 Since the bottled was bough by the friend of the Plaintiff, filing
    this lawsuit under the contract law regime was not applicable;

    As a consequences, Plaintiff had no immediate legal rights to


    2 compensate the damage or injury acquired.
    The Court Battle

    Plaintiff Opinion : Defendant Opinion :

    Plaintiff had an injury and claimed


    that the Defendant had breached the Defendant challenged Plaintiff by
    duty of care to his consumer and under the basis of absence of
    caused injury to negligence.
    precedent on such claim.
    Judge Consideration to make
    the Judicial Decision
    Principle of Negligence (Tort) :

    Negligence is a tort due to the injury caused by it, despite the fact there are
    absence of contractual agreement.

    Duty of Care Principle :

    According Lord Atkin’s ratio decendi, product manufacturer shall treated their
    costumer with care.

    Neighbor Principle (Love thy Neighbor) :


    We must take reasonable care to avoid action or omission that could potentially
    arise an injury to our neighbor or a person who are close to us or directly affected
    by our act or omission.
    Lord Atkin Quotes

    “Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The


    answer seems to be – persons who are so
    closely and directly affected by my act that I
    “The rule that you are to love your
    ought reasonably to have them in
    neighbour becomes in law ‘You must
    contemplation as being so affected when I am
    not injure your neighbour. You must
    directing my mind to the acts or omissions
    take reasonable care to avoid acts or
    which are called in question.”
    omissions which you can reasonably
    foresee would be likely to injure your
    neighbour.”
    Among other areas, the “love thy neighbor” principle covers personal injury, product
    liability, professional negligence on the part of doctors, mechanics, and anyone else
    providing a service.

    THE CASE WAS WON BY THE PLAINTIFF


    AND THIS JUDICIAL DECISION BECAME
    A PRECEDENT REGARDING ON LAW OF
    TORT
    EXPLANATION STARE DECESIS

    The doctrine of precedent or stare decesis that basically stated that cases shall be verdicted base on the existed
    verdict (by other judge) in the precedent case (Jurisprudence) (Soeroso, 2018 : 135).
    According to the Common Law legal sources , Stare Descesis also known as Judicial Decision as it is written on
    the legal sources mentioned therein :

    1 Judge verdict or judicial decision (Stare Descesis).

    2 Costumary Law (Customs).

    3 Written stipulation (Statute).

    4 State administrative regulations (Decree).


    STARE DECISIS
    APPLICATION TOWARD
    THE CASE
    PART 1

    Since this case is absence of precedent judicial decision, stare decisis was not applicable in this cases. In fact, Lord Atkin
    as the judge examining and verdicted this case were using a legal principle.
    This action is based on the judge authority under common law system to take action in a form of making a decision base
    on justice values, truth and common sense of the judge himself due to the absence of precedent judicial decision.
    There are many new legal principle rised and developed from case law due to this authorities owned by the judge himself.
    STARE DECISIS APPLICATION
    PART 2

    Therefore the Lord Atkin did not applied a stare decisis in


    this case due to the absence of the precedent verdict
    itself.
    Furthermore, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
    There is no other commandement greater than these
    (Mark : 12 : 31).
    PERSONAL OPINION
    It’s interesting that Lord Atkin used a biblical proverb of the Good Samaritan as a basis of judgement that
    later would be known as “the neighbor principle”. This attest “judge made law” principle in common law
    system, in which judges in common law adherent countries have jurisdiction where the judge is the party
    that making the law.
    It also proves that Donoghue v Stevenson case laid a foundation of modern law negligence and
    established the principles of the duty of care when at the time it seemed impossible for Donoghue to win
    the case. As a result, this case gave a new perspective and changed the way they do consumer protection
    law in English, giving more power to the consumers who are harmed by a product to get their
    compensation.
    PERSONAL OPINION

    Absent a contract, a manufacturer owed no duty of care to a consumer when putting a product on the
    market except:If the manufacturer was aware that the product was dangerous because of a defect
    and it was concealed from the consumer or The product was danger per se and failed to warn the
    consumer of this.bsent a contract, a manufacturer owed no duty of care to a consumer when putting
    a product on the market except:
    If the manufacturer was aware that the product was dangerous because of a defect and it was
    concealed from the consumer (i.e., fraud); or The product was danger per se and failed to warn the
    consumer of this.
    CONCLUSION

    Precedent decisions are not the only guidelines for judges in making
    decisions and this case has provided an update on tort law in the
    application of common law.
    By learning this case, we know the fact that legal principle is the highest
    source in the common law system, and from here we hereby stated that
    judge also has an authority to find (or dig) a legal principle to verdict the
    cases that he examine.

    You might also like