Exploring The Donoghue V Stevenson Case Analysis


Task: Analyse a landmark UK case of your choice and discuss how it has had an impact on how the law works today.


The readings from Kaplan (2019) that were taken into account for the Donoghue v. Stevenson case study show that the UK legal system appears to be one of those that is based on precedent and case law. Over the past 100 years, the court has a history of rendering judgments that may have an impact on how law is currently practised and may develop in the future. However, there have been a number of landmark rulings that have changed the UK legal system. The case study of "The Paisley Snail and Duty of Care - Donoghue v Stevenson case analysis" was highlighted in this study, along with a discussion of its implications for current legal developments.


Identifying and talking about pertinent laws

The UK Corporate Governance Code and the Insolvency Act of 1986 appear to be two pieces of legislation that the law of the UK uses to manage firms that are created in accordance with the Companies Act of 2006. A key legal vehicle for organising and managing a business appears to be an organisation, according to European Union court rulings and Directives. Based on the relevant case study, it has been determined that negligence is a legal term that first appeared in 1932, when the "House of Lords decision" set forth the requirements for when someone owes another person a duty of care. As a result, the study of the relevant Donoghue v. Stevenson case has produced an important case for the Western Law (Baskind et al., 2019). The primary decision in this case established a civil law tort for negligence and required businesses to uphold their duty of care to customers. It has been established that manufacturers have a duty of care to the final consumers of their products if it appears to be impossible to detect the flaws prior to obtaining the items. Analysis of the Donoghue v. Stevenson case (1932) The House of Lords' decision in UKHL 100 is a seminal one for both English tort law and Scots delict law.

In the examination of the Donoghue v. Stevenson case, Donoghue has been viewed as a useful test case for determining whether a person had a claim rather than was owed compensation for any losses suffered. According to Devenney (2016), there must have been a recognised contractual relationship in order for the legislation based on negligence to apply at the time in question. As a result, it was determined that the case's outcomes established specific legal principles.


First of all, the House of Lords decision confirmed that this negligence constitutes a tort. This is similar to how a plaintiff might do a social act against a responder if the respondents' negligence results in both property loss and injury to the plaintiff. Donoghue can be excused for not having a contract with Stevenson because it was well known that he would not buy the beverage. But according to Lord Atkin's judgement, Stevenson, who is well-known, is still in charge of maintaining the quality of the output.