Interpretations of past decisions The development of negligence Interpretations of past decisions We know that Courts create precedent when they make a judgement on a new issue Decisions of the courts may also be interpreted, clarified or
"Interpretations of past decisions The development" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to
download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it
on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright
notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this
agreement.
Presentation Transcript
01
Interpretations of past decisions The development of negligence<br>
02
Interpretations of past decisions We know that…
Courts create precedent when they make a judgement on a new issue
Decisions of the courts may also be interpreted, clarified or extended in their meaning<br>
03
Interpretations of past decisions In applying and interpreting past decisions, Courts:
Strengthen the authority and importance of the precedent
Extend or restrict the applications of the past precedent
Overrule, distinguish, or disapprove of past precedent<br>
04
The Development of the law of negligence First established in the UK by the case:
Donoghue VS. Stevenson (1932)
First established in Australia by the case:
Grant v. Australia Knitting Mills (1936)
**Please note: whilst examining precedent through case studies is helpful in building your understanding, the Study Design DOES NOT require that you know a specific case**<br>
05
Snail in the bottle- facts of the case In 1932 Donoghue and a friend went to a cafe where her friend bought her a ginger beer which came in an opaque bottle.
Donghue drank half the ginger beer directly from the bottle before the rest into a glass.
When she poured the rest of the ginger beer into the glass she discovered the remains of a decomposed snail.<br>
06
Snail in the bottle She developed a long-term illness
She had no contract with the store, so could not sue the store under contract law
And this would have been unsuccessful anyway, as they had no way of knowing about the snail.
It was not the fault of the store keeper as the bottle was sealed and opaque.
It was the fault of the manufacturer who had not cleaned the bottle correctly.<br>
07
Snail in the bottle So she sued the manufacturer on the grounds that they had been careless in the production of the product.
The judge found in her favour.
The court ruled that people (including manufacturers) must take care to avoid harming other people who they can reasonably foresee could be injured by their acts and omissions.<br>
08
Snail in the bottle The judge’s ratio decidendi was...
“where the manufacturer sells a product which will reach the ultimate consumer...the manufacturer owes a duty of care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee”<br>
09
The impact: The ‘Snail in the Bottle’ case established the law of negligence in the UK, as any case heard in a lower court with similar material facts had to adhere to the existing precedent.<br>
10
The law of negligence Was established in Australia through the Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills case…<br>
11
Itchy underpants In 1936 Grant was affected by severe dermatitis from wearing a pair of underpants he purchased
The manufacturer had left a chemical, sulphite, in the material which should have been washed out.
At this time a ‘buyer beware’ principle applied, which stated that it was the purchaser’s responsibility to inspect all goods before buying them.<br>
12
Itchy underpants However, in this case the purchaser could not detect the fault even if he tried.
Like Donghue, Grant also sued the manufacturer<br>
13
Itchy underpants The court followed the precedent set in the Donoghue V Stevenson case
Ruled that actions or omissions of the manufacturer directly caused Grant injury and that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.<br>
