The proposal for a ratio decidendi (Latin: the reason for the decision) of the case ranged from the narrowest, jokingly proposed by Julius Stone that there was only one obligation “not to sell opaque bottles of beverages containing dead snails to Scottish widows”[22], to the broadest proposed by Lord Normand, who had been one of Stevenson`s defenders. that Lord Atkins` principle of neighbourliness was relationship. [23]: 756-757 [1]: 7 Thus, the case in Donoghue v. Stevenson introduced crucial principles necessary to establish the degree of due diligence liability and the neighborhood principle in the still young field of tort law in the early 20th century. The trial judge in that case, Lord Moncrieff, ruled in favour of Ms Donoghue, but the Scottish Court of Session, Second Chamber, rejected Ms Donoghue`s argument that she had a duty of care. The only court that could appeal was the House of Lords in London, which was very expensive. Since she could not afford to provide security in case her appeal was lost, Ms. Donoghue had to prove that she was a weapon (a poor person in need of legal charity) in order for her case to be heard. Their petition described their poverty. The case was heard by Lord Moncrieff at Outer House on 27 June 1930. In its judgment delivered on the same day, it held that, in principle, liability for negligent preparation of foodstuffs should be engaged. [5]: 25-26 Nevertheless, many scholars criticize the ongoing fanfare in this case, noting that the established principles are too fundamental.
It is precisely for this reason that the author considers it necessary to study the case law given exhaustively. As cases become more complex, it is prudent to conclude that there is an urgent need to get back to basics and study all those that are taken for granted today. In addition, the appellants argued that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applicable in this case. The fact that there was a snail in the bottle “spoke for itself” of the negligence of the manufacturers. Finally, the applicants argued that the abovementioned exceptions to the general principle were too strict and limited. The legal basis for the action was now settled and the case was referred to the Court of Session for a hearing scheduled for January 1933. At the hearing, Donoghue would have to prove the facts of the case she alleged, including the fact that due to Stevenson`s negligence, there was a snail in the ginger beer and that this snail caused his illness. [5]: 170 However, Stevenson died on November 12, 1932, at the age of 69. [5]: 7 A year later, Stevenson`s executors were appointed third counsel for the case. However, the claim was settled out of court in December 1934:[13] 115 for £200 of the £500 originally claimed, according to Leechman`s son. [Note 5] [3] [5]: 171-173 This case acquired great significance because of the three fundamental legal principles it set out – one of the most egregious aspects that came to mind when reading the original judgment Donoghue v.
Stevenson (1932) is the stark contrast between the judgments of Lord Atkins and Lord Buckmaster. Both arrived at opposing views based on the same factual scenario, a situation that is a good indicator of the increasing complexity of the legal system. Donoghue v. Stevenson in 1932 is very important because it set an important precedent – the legal concept of due diligence. On the other hand, Lord Atkin, who reiterated the immense role that judges play in protecting citizens` rights by ensuring the development of a principle that realigns the concept of liability for negligence. As a result, he played a crucial role in changing the perspective on how the common law operates, as well as in the inevitable development of tort law.