The Snail In The Bottle Case Study

1503 Words7 Pages
Question 1
Duty of care is defined as “the legal duty to take reasonable care to prevent causing harm or injury.” There will be a breach of a duty of care owed to the claimant if there is an act or omission that causes the harm or injury. The neighbour principle is where a person can reasonably foresee that his or her actions may cause physical damage to another person or property of others, thus there is a duty to take reasonable care in most situations (Law & Martin (ed.) 2013, p. 187).
Lord Atkin developed the neighbour principle in the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, also known as the Snail in the Bottle case, to determine when a duty of care might arise. The existence and extent of the duty of care will depend on the
…show more content…
If so, a prima facie duty of care arose. The first stage of the test in the case of Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 incorporates the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin. Then, secondly, it was necessary to consider whether there were any considerations that ought to “negative, or to reduce or limit” that duty. The second stage of the test predicts ‘policy’ factors that negating, reducing or limiting a duty, which but for those policy reasons would be…show more content…
The landmark case of Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 has created the three tier test in order to establish duty of care. The Caparo test departs from the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 as well as the test laid down by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 that begins by assuming that there is a duty of care and that damage or injury was foreseeable unless there is good reason to judge otherwise. Whereas the Caparo test begins by assuming that no duty of care is owed unless the criteria of the three tier test are

More about The Snail In The Bottle Case Study

Open Document