Lawyer Monthly Magazine August 2020 Edition

62 WWW.LAWYER-MONTHLY.COM | AUG 2020 LANDMARK LEGAL CASES WHICH HAVE SHAPED UK’S LAW Commonly cited, this judgment is a leading example in the common law of contract, marking how it has shaped UK’s law. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. made a product called the “smoke ball” and claimed it to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases and advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded This court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords, laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Mrs Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer that happened to contain a dead snail and when she fell ill, she sued the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. As she had not bought the drink herself, she had no contract on which to sue. Nonetheless, the case proceeded from the Court of Session to the House of Lords, where it was held that the manufacturer was liable as he Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932 6 7 £100. Mrs Carlill sued the manufacturer as they then refused to pay out; the court decided that their statement and promise, together with Mrs Carlill’s use of the product as directed, amounted to a legally binding contract and she was entitled to the reward. The case explores the principles that must be present in modern-day contracts today, such as offer and acceptance. owed a duty of care to the customer , which was breached because it was reasonable to foresee that a failure to ensure product safety could harm the consumer. This case ignited the neighbour principle – the idea one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure one’s neighbour, therefore, Donoghue v Stevenson saw the law of negligence being extended to require reasonable care towards those likely to be affected by a person’s or company’s actions. This judgment in English law by the House of Lords is known tobe ground-breaking due to it shaping the modern legal understanding of private property rights. The case arose from a disagreement about gleaning during the 1785 harvest. After the barley crop had been cut and cleared, shoemaker Benjamin Manning had gone onto the land of John Worlledge, to glean and had carried away a quantity of barley. This English tort law case first introduced the concept of the reasonable person in law. A man had sued his neighbour after a fire had burnt down two cottages. The defendant had built a hay rick despite being warned several times over a period of five weeks that the manner in which he built the hay rick was dangerous. The hay ignited and thus spread to the claimant’s land. At trial, the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the fire had been caused by gross negligence on the part of Worlledge v Manning, 1786 Vaughan v Menlove, 1837 4 5 Worlledge disputed this and brought an action for trespass in the Court of Common Pleas. The court decided in Worlledge’s favour in May 1786 and awarded him damages and costs. This was the first time that gleaners’ rights had been challenged and it served as a precedent and possible catalyst for the landmark Steel v Houghton case a year later. the defendant and stated the defendant “was [duty] bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances. “ The jury found the defendant negligent. This case was decided during a transitional period in the history of the common law rule on negligence and liability. In the US and England, there was no settled standard for tort liability until the mid- to late 19th century. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892