Read below my essay and after read below the comment from my professor, please help me to reply to her questions
is recognized as a tort or a civil wrong in which there is carelessness that is
beyond any reasonable human ability, and it raises liability in a court of law.
The negligence tort developed in the English legal history relatively late. The
English adverb “negligently” was often included by court pleadings and
judgments before 1762 to emphasize the wrongness of the conduct of a defendant
when regarding to an already established tort. However, in 1762, a commentator of
the Comyn’s Digest referred to a form of action on a case as negligence. Later
in the 19th Century, negligence was recognized as a separate basis
of liability. It was determined that for negligence to occur, there are three
main elements of negligence, which included the legal duty to take care, harm
that results from the failure to take care and also the failure to take that
A case that shows how the tort of negligence was developed fully is the Donoghue
v Stevenson .
In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson ,
which was determined by the House of Lords, Mrs. Donoghue had gone to a café with
a friend and bought ice creams and a bottle of ginger beer. The contents of the
ginger beer could not be seen since it was in an opaque bottle, and as she was
taking the beer, there emerged a decomposed snail from the bottle, which made
Donoghue suffer personal injury. This made her make claims against the beer
manufacturer for the injury caused. The claim became successful and the modern
law of negligence was established from this case. Lord Atkin established the
neighbor principle in which he seeks to establish who a neighbor is. This is
from the rule that a person should love his neighbor, and it states that he
should not injure his neighbor. Therefore, one should take reasonable care to
prevent omissions or acts, which are reasonably foreseeable that they would
likely injure their neighbor. A neighbor, hence, is a person who is directly
and closely affected by one’s acts that is should have them reasonably in consideration
as being affected when one’s mind is directed to the omissions or actions in
This case has, directly, cause of action from
the manacles that limited its growth. The field of duty of care was left to
spread to new institutions that it was not being applied before. The neighbor principal
works even in cases, which involve physical injury that has been caused by a
positive act. This is most applicable when there is proximity and
foreseeability. In addition, in cases where proximity and foreseeability was
not applicable, the neighbor principle gave such cases a greater significance,
hence, enabling easier judgment of such cases. Through this principle,
corporations and other goods and service providing organizations have increased
the amount of care they award to their clients because the clients in this case
are their neighbors.
This has led to production of high quality products, conservation of the
environment, and ensuring that employees wear protective gear when in their
designated places of work. The case has expanded to the fact that it applies to
any individual or corporation who owes others a duty of care in his actions.
For example, when a neighbor’s loud music damages my eardrums, I am entitled,
under the neighbor principle, to sue the neighbor for the damages caused.
English Legal System: Selected
Essays. (Oxford [u.a.: Hart, 2003).
Oldham, James. English
Common Law in the Age of Mansfield. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).
P. Keith, Snail Trail, New Law Journal. 11th May
2012, viewed on July 19, 2013, <http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/snail-trail>
Hanson, Legal Method, Skills and
Reasoning, (3rd edn, Cavendish Publishing 2010).
James. English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield. (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 2004. P. 274-279).
 P. Keith, Snail Trail, New Law Journal. 11th May
2012, viewed on July 19, 2013, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/snail-trail
 S Hanson, Legal Method, Skills and Reasoning, (3rd
ed, Cavendish Publishing 2010. P. 78-89)
 English Legal System: Selected
Essays. (Oxford [u.a.: Hart, 2003. P. 300)
Thank you for your fascinating response to the issues raised by this week discussion questionJ Your submission contains a number of interesting and thought-provoking issues. The facts of Donoghue case show that there was no contractual relationship between the respondent manufacturer of the aerated water and the claimant yet the House of Lords by a majority of 3:2 held the existence of such a relationship. In your view, why should the Law recognize liability in situations where there is no prior contractual arrangement? On what grounds did the House of Lords based their argument for establishing such relationship? Do you agree with the arguments put forward by the court in the case?
As usual all views are welcome!
 Donoghue v. Stevenson  UKHL 100
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!