Why Is 1932 Ac 562 Still Important To The Law Of Negligence

“To what extent is the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 still important to the duty of care in the law of negligence?”

Donoghue v Stevenson saw the establishment of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin which states that individuals “must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. To evaluate whether this principle is still useful in courts in the 21st Century, one would have to look at the modern day cases after the evolution and decide whether the initial idea is still being used or not. In this essay I will analyse the immediate change caused by Donoghue v Stevenson and whether this still affects judicial decisions in the modern day.

Donoghue v Stevenson was a case brought to the House of Lords in 1932 regarding the duty of care that was essential from a manufacturer to a consumer. There was still no recognition of negligence at the time that Donoghue v Stevenson reached the House of Lords, meaning it was a difficult case to judge on. Lord Atkin introduced the neighbour principle in order to create a general principle by

Initially, the claimant would have to prove that it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the negligence caused loss, followed by the proof of a “relationship of proximity” between the claimant and defendant, while finally deciding whether it is “fair, just and reasonable to impose liability”. Lord Bridge stated that the test that emerged from Anns showed the “inability of any single general principle to provide a practical test”, whilst Heuston concurs that “the significance of the neighbour principle has been over-emphasised by both its supporters and opponents”. This means that the neighbour principle was too broad in order to actually accomplish anything within the scope of negligence