Negligence and Contract Law: A Study on Donoghue v Stevenson

Donoghue v Stevenson was the case that changed everything. Before this case, a contract could not impose limited liability on a stranger. Thus meant that a third party who suffered loss and damage as a result of a breach of warranty in a contract between two other parties could not sue.

A clear description of negligence was set out in the case Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

‘‘…. the omission to do something which a erasable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.’’ - Alderson B.

To sue under negligence, the plaintiff must show that there is:

A duty of care

Breach of that duty

Damages

Causation.

receives a restricted reply, You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law, is my neighbour?’

The answer to who is my neighbour is the ‘’persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act thatI I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation’’. A defendant will owe a duty of care to the plaintiff if it reasonably foreseeable that his or hers omissions could cause injury to the plaintiff . This case removed the application of doctrine of privity. It allowed third parties to sue under negligence.

Following Donoghue, the limits of negligence continued to expand. In Hedley Byrne v Co Ltd v Heller & Partners, the court imposed a duty of care in cases involving economic loss where up to then no duty of care

In this case. Juveniles had escaped from the local penal institution and damaged the plaintiffs yacht. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant owed them a duty of care because the juveniles where in their custody. The House of Lords held that the Home Office owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. It was the omission by the defendants. They failed to supervise the boys. It was alleged that the guards had been asleep at the time of the escape. This expanded the ‘neighbour principle’. The wrong was not actually committed the Home Office. It was committed by the juveniles which are a third