Donoghue And Stevenson Revisiting Business Liability in English Common Law

Donoghue v Stephens

Revisiting the concept of Business Liability in English Common Law

David Ellis LL.M MBA BA


The case of Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] represents one of the most celebrated and fundamental cases in English law contributing to the development of the law of Tort.[1] This case is not only important in the understanding of the development of the concept of the “duty of care” principle in English law but also assists with the understanding of how negligence came to be accepted as a tort.

It is interesting that the many references and adherence of this case which has gained international recognition in several jurisdictions; and has been the driving principle behind the development of negligence decisions in many countries fail to examine its significance as a philosophical as well as a legal concept. Indeed, its acclaim over the 84 years of existence, which included an anniversary pilgrimage to the Mecca of negligence law[2] suggest that this legal icon deserves more than just an examination of its contribution to the law of tort.  Donoghue can also be seen as the foundation of a much wider conceptual philosophy of Law and as a source of moral instruction.

This assignment intends to explore just that proposition, through a detailed analysis of the specifics and the historical significance of Donoghue v Stevenson and with respect to the material and ethical intricacies which it develops. It will also examine the development of the “neighbour principle” as it applies to law both in the UK and internationally. Finally, the fundamental concepts discovered in this examination will be applied in real terms to the environmental crisis caused by Oil companies in the Niger Delta and how the theories contained within this simple case are of relevance to this modern day event and to the wider world.

  1. The material facts of Donoghue are as simple as many scholars have suggested. On 26th of August, 1928, Ms. May Donoghue and a friend stopped for a drink at the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley Scotland. The friend ordered ice cream and a bottle of ginger bear for Ms. Donoghue and paid for them. The Ginger beer was supplied in a dark opaque bottle. Ms. Donoghue filled her glass and drank some of the contents. As she poured the rest of the contents out of the bottle a partially decomposed snail fell out of the bottle into the glass. Donoghue became very ill, suffering nausea, gastro-enteritis and what was then referred to as nervous shock. She sued the manufacturer for damages as a result of negligence. Donoghue’s case was successful in the lower court under Lord Morncrief and was appealed thereafter in the Second Divisional Court whereupon the decision by Lord Moncrief was overturned. A further appeal by Donoghue to the House of Lords was successful.[3]
  2. The legal issues which were involved in the case were problematic at the time. Donoghue was unable to sue the Manufacturer on the basis of a contractual obligation as the beer was bought for her by a friend rendering her a third party to the transaction which was the established mode of reclaiming damages at the time. Ms. Donoghue had little choice therefore but to sue the Manufacturer for breach of a duty of care to his consumers through negligence in the manufacture of his product precipitating the development of negligence as a tort, the establishment of “the duty of care” which manufacturers had to the ultimate users of their products, and the clarification of the necessary relationship and test that was needed to constitute negligence (the neighbor principle).
  3. The House of Lords comprising, Lord MacMillan, Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton,  Lord Tomlin and Lord Buckmaster[4] reversed (via a majority decision) the decision of the Second Division court comprising Lord Ormidale, Lord Hunter and Lord Anderson who found themselves bound by earlier decision in Mullen v. A.G. Barr & Co. Ltd.; McGowan v. Barr & Co. [1929] [5] and restored the judgement of the lower court on the basis that the manufacturer did indeed owe a duty of care to persons who would be the ultimate consumers of his products.
  4. Donoghue v Stevenson saw a split judgement in the house of Lords between the five jurists who were present. The dissenters (Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin) contended that the current trend of decisions in English law involving cases of negligence and in particular cases against manufacturers were against the awarding of damages to consumers when it involved third parties to a contract and that to award the judgment would be to open up the floodgates of private litigation. Their reasoning was based on the premise that the law according to the trend of decisions of the time did not contain a precedent whereby individuals could pursue actions against manufacturers of good and articles if they were a third party to the arrangement. Cases such as Langridge V Levy [1837][6] and Winterbottom V Wright [1842][7] which had been largely unsuccessful in the recovery damages on the part of the plaintiff were at the heart of Lord Buckmaster’s opinion. He also stated that there was no precedent set for this case and further to this idea he cited Mullen V Barr & Co and McGowan V Barr & Company [1929][8] which was a Scottish case with material facts similar to Donoghue and Stevenson where the Manufacturer was held not to have liability to the consumer for a mouse discovered in a bottle of ginger beer.  Lord Tomlin also articulated the traditionalist and cautious view that the award of liability on the manufacturer would create a situation where all manufacturers of good and services would be held to a duty of care to all their prospective consumers. This was a legitimate concern as goods leaving the Manufacturers hands would in theory be subjected to a number of conditions and pass through the care of third parties such as retailers which would have affected the state of the final product when it was presented to the consumer. This would be in effect to create a policy in law which would see the proliferation of a number of cases in courts in the UK based on assertions where the manufacturers fault could not be reasonably determined. Such a situation would have implications for the Manufacturing industry in a country which was experiencing a steady growth in production at the time. Friedrech Engels referred to this stage of English history as the Industrial revolution[9] and creating a precedent which made manufacturers more susceptible to actions in court would have been equivalent to threatening the growth in Industry which the country would have been experiencing at the time. These concerns however were not necessarily relevant in the current case as the manufacturer; as expressed by Lord Atkin had made efforts to ensure that his product was not tampered with by concealing it in an opaque bottle and by sealing the bottle. [10]

The majority judges in the case took a more humanistic interpretation of the law and expressed that the following should apply:

(a) that the manufacturer in question (Stevenson) intended for his product to be consumed by the public and so has entered into a legal duty to them in the interest of public health and safety.

(b) that the manufacturer was at fault because he has taken steps to ensure that the item when it reaches the consumer was the same as it left him and precluded no opportunity for inspection.

(c) that the law regarding negligence should adapt itself to the circumstance of the case and not be subjected to rigid rules of contract and precedent lest it become unfair and unjust to regular citizens.

(d) That there was no established currency of judgments which Lord Buckmaster had suggested in UK Law to posit the theory that the appellant could not succeed in her claim as evidenced by cases such as George V Skivington [1869][11] and Heaven V Pender [1883][12] where  the question of a Dry Dock Manager’s duty of Care to individuals using his equipment created a basis for the foundation of duty of care to individuals which were outside of a contractual obligation on the part of the person causing  the injury.[13]

Lord Atkin’s judgment condenses the sentiment of the majority decision as he concerns himself less with the trends of the judgments in cases which were similar to the Donoghue v Stevenson case but with the concepts of negligence, the manufacturer’s duty of care and the redress which members of the public should have against manufacturers who pose a public harm. Like the other jurists who formed the majority, Lord Atkins judgment can be summarized as follows:

(a) That the Laws regarding the case are the same in English as in Scottish law.

(b) That this law cannot be so over reaching as to give everyone who has been injured by a manufacturers product an open license claim redress.

(c) That Manufacturers should be held to standard as they have placed themselves in a position of duty when they place their products on the market for public consumption. (d) That the lack of the possibility of a proper inspection by the consumer of a product because of the sealed container of the manufacturer creates liability on the part of the manufacturer.

(e) That the cases of negligence against a manufacturer does not disclose a hard and fast rule of how cases should proceed but is based on the circumstances contained in the case itself.

(f) The appellants case is based on negligence and not contract and therefore the argument that she is a third party to a contract is not relevant.

  • The neighbor principle reflects Lord Atkins attempt to find some common ground between the cases regarding negligence which were prevalent in the English system prior to Donoghue V Stevenson.[14] He attempted to draw a parallel within the cases so as to give some idea of predictability and generality in the outcome of the cases to future jurists by stating that in the area of negligence the concept of “love thy neighbor” applies and within a legal context neighbor is to be defined as those persons which the individual should reasonably give consideration to before committing any act.

The reference itself is Judeo-Christian in origin and is contained in the story of the good Samaritan located in the book of Luke 10:25-37 in the holy bible, where the concept of benevolence to one’s neighbor (people in one’s proximity) was extolled.[15] Lord Atkin’s application however  does not accurately reflect the moral of the story[16] but expands the concept in a such a way as to include the concept of “neighborhood” as not only those who are within the physical proximity of the subject but also those who are affected by a subject’s actions. The reasoning removed the restriction of a contractual requirement  as a ground for denying any individual legal redress if it was found they were injured by the negligent actions of another  and that a duty of care was owed to them.[17]

  • The development of the neighbor principle in the UK prior to Lord Atkins official declaration of it as a legal principle began in the 19th century where injured consumers unable to sue manufacturers unless they were direct party to a contract were forced to resort to suing on the grounds of negligence.[18] The requirements of this route of action were that claimants needed to demonstrate that the manufacturer owed them as consumers a duty of care as well as the fact that they were indeed injured by negligence on the part of the individual or entity which owed them this duty of care. Landmark decisions such as George V Skivington however loosened the boundaries for injured parties to claim compensation for their injuries in that they demonstrated that claimants did not necessarily have to be a direct party to a contract in order to claim compensation for injuries sustained in court.

Heaven Vs Pender was a defining case which lay the groundwork for Lord Atkin’s Declaration of the neighbor principle. Lord Brett suggested in his judgment of the case that there was a wider duty on the part of the defendant to exercise “ordinary care and skill”[19] in order to ensure that those individuals who might be injured through the use of his equipment should have been afforded the consideration of a proper inspection of the ropes supplied by the defendant in that case.

Since Donoghue however there have been adaptations made to the neighbor principle within the UK more in the way of iterations rather than revisions. The case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964][20] for instance expanded the concept of the duty of care to service oriented businesses like banks where negligent statements made by a banking official were seen to come under the duty of care which the bank had to the consumer upon whose good judgment he relied upon for making decisions. The decisions in Anns V Merton London Borough Council[21] and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990][22] also expanded the salient concepts inherent in the neighbor principle to include two and three point tests respectively aimed at refining the principle into its constituent parts; That being the duty of care owed and the concept of proximity. The Ann’s Test as it has been coined required claimants to establish in the first instance a relation based on proximity and foreseeability and in the second instance considerations outside this relationship were taken into account as to why there should not be a duty of care between the parties of a case.[23] The Caparo test and the judgment in Murphy V Brentwood District Council [1991][24] overruled and replaced the Ann’s test in 1991 with a more elaborate three-point system based on whether there was 1. foreseeable potential for injury, 2. whether the relationship between the injured and the accused was sufficiently proximal and 3. the considerations of the court toward fairness and justice in any given circumstance.[25]

In Australia similar developments were occurring in law albeit under different circumstances.  In the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936][26] for example where the plaintiff claimed he contracted dermatitis owing to a chemical irritant placed in his woolen underwear by the manufacturer, the High Court of Australia held that the defendants were liable for damages done to the defendant, this judgment was reached after consideration of the precedent set by Donoghue to include all manufacturers and was expanded to the following criteria to state that for an action in negligence to be successful it had to show that a duty of care was owed to the appellant, that there was a breach of this duty and that the breach caused injury to the defendant. In a further more interesting case in the same jurisdiction, Harriton (by her tutor) v Stephens [2006][27] the concept of duty of care was once again examined in a rather unusual manner in the Australian High Court where Alexa Harrington sued a medical doctor for breach of the care of duty to her mother in providing inaccurate medical advice which led to her being born. The case is interesting because like Donoghue, it is based on the claim that the Doctor (Stephens) breached a duty of care to Ms. Harrington’s mother by providing false information that she did not have rubella while she was pregnant with the plaintiff Alexa Harrington resulting in the birth of Alexa.[28] The claim was dismissed on the grounds that  the  basis upon which the claim was brought was not a proposition which was widely accepted by the society[29] and as such could not be supported by judgment in court.[30]

The development of the neighbor principle and duty of care in Canada however took a very different form from that in the UK in that there has been an almost dogmatic insistence by the Canadian Courts in adhering to the example set by the Donoghue judgment and to the Ann’s test.[31] The considerations to these developments in English law saw the rapid increase of negligence based cases in the Canadian jurisdiction.[32] The Canadian example however does provide a rather interesting reconfiguration of the Ann’s test in that judgments concerning, pure economic loss, the liability of public authorities, and duties of affirmative action were successful in favor of the plaintiffs (Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen [1984][33], Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co [1992][34], Central Trust Co. Vs Raffuse [1986][35]). The Canadian courts strictly applied the two stage process of the Anns test until 2001 when the courts departed from the precedent set in Kamloops by creating a new category in Ann’s test by prescribing that there had to be proximity as well as foreseeability in order for there to be liability in the first stage of test. In Cooper v Hobart [2001][36] and Edwards v the law society of Upper Canada [2001],[37] the Supreme Court in Canada applied new restrictions on the pursuance of claims not only against statutory bodies but curbed the gratuitous expectation of relief which clients expected by bringing cases to court against government agencies. The addition of Proximity as a necessary element to the first stage of Ann’s test created an additional layer of protection for government agencies who could only be held responsible for the duties which were specifically prescribed to them by law.[38] This meant that individuals seeking redress would find it more than challenging to prove that there was a direct duty of care owed to them by the Statutory body and that this duty of care was breached. A rather problematic situation considering that statutory bodies are public entities and creating an argument for proximity would prove challenging for the private citizen.  

This is a bit different from the experience of the UK where statutes concerning of government agencies traditionally have not created the possibility of recovery of losses through private action (Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd [1949][39], Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] [40]).  This protection enjoyed by public bodies in the UK does shed some light on the limitations of Lord Atkins Neighbor principle in terms of the categories of cases which the UK courts were willing to entertain and demonstrates a philosophical problem between what constitutes “neighborly duty of Care” on a wider societal scale.

  • The Article describes a situation where there is alleged gross misconduct and negligence on the part of the Oil companies which operate within the Nigerian Delta. An analysis of the principles of law expounded by Lord Atkin reveal the following points:
  • Based on foreseeability, it should be the Oil Companies responsibility to reasonably determine that their activities could pose a threat to the livelihood of the villagers who live in the Delta and should therefore have had them in consideration when they were carrying on their activities. The onus was on them to have proper security in place to police their pipelines to ensure that sabotage from rebels would not have resulted in the oil spills claimed by the villagers and that their equipment was regularly inspected and in good working condition. In Alfred Apkan and Vereniging Milieudefensie, v Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Petroleum Development of Nigeria [2011][41], a case tried in The Hague the district court awarded the plaintiff compensation based on the fact that Shell had negligently failed to secure a wellhead in 2006 which contributed to “the sabotage that was committed at that time in an easy manner.”[42] This landmark judgment against both the parent company and it’s subsidiary in a European court demonstrates that foreseeability of potential harm is still a very important concept in Law.
  • The neighbor principle states that people who are affected by the act are your neighbor. There is a direct and proximal relation between the oil company and the residents as their pipelines run within their habitat. The oil companies’ destruction of their habitat through their operations should theoretically create liability in the form of damages for loss of income, and loss of living standard.
  • Negligence presents itself not only in the form of the unreasonable delay in repairing the damage caused by oil spills and supports the claim that the oil companies negligently conduct their business without the public as their uppermost concern. This was one of several charges brought against Shell Nigeria for instance in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [2000][43], Wiwa v. Anderson [2000][44], and Wiwa v. Shell Petroleum Development Corporation [2000][45]. This trilogy of cases filed at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York accused Shell of negligence and a number of human rights abuses under the Alien Tort Statute [1789][46], The Torture Victim Protection Act [1991][47] and The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [1970].[48] The outcome was an out of court settlement in the amount if 15.5 million dollars in order to compensate the plaintiffs for their losses.

Clearly Lord Atkins conceptualization of “neighbor” though idealistic and well intentioned poses problems of practicality when applied on a more international scale as was the case in the Niger Delta in two main areas.

The first difficulty which arises is literally the idea of what constitutes “neighborhood” in situations of international litigation. In Apkan Vs Royal Dutch Shell PLC [2011][49], shell maintained that Apkan’s action in the European Court was not relevant based on the argument that events in the Niger Delta were out of the jurisdiction of The Hague and that the actions of it’s subsidiary company, Shell Nigeria could not support a basis for action in the Dutch Court. The Dutch court however disagreed and asserted its jurisdiction in the matter. This was a landmark decision by the court since it represented the first time a Dutch Multinational had been successfully sued for the actions of one of its subsidiaries in a Dutch court.[50]

Second is the determination of what constitutes reasonable care as being applicable to the laws of differing jurisdictions. In Fidelis Ayoro Oguru and others v Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria [2011][51] the court denied all claims of Oguru et al on the basis of the Land Use Act [1978] of Nigeria which states that individuals who are not exclusive owners of the land have no right to bring actions on the basis of loss of income as a result of pollution of that land. Additionally, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the court costs incurred by Shell in defending their action. Here the law in Nigeria limited the ability of individuals affected by Shell’s action to recover damages and as such provides a legislative barrier to the application of the Neighbor principle in it’s most natural form.


Donoghue v Stevenson still remains one of the foundation cases to which the law of Tort owes a gratitude in the development of negligence 84 years after the fact. Its relevance can be seen as more of a philosophical foundation of reasoning as opposed to a hard and fast tenet set forward by a House of Lords in an attempt to bring about a reformation of Law. Lord Atkin’s, judgment and reasoning has provided the legal community with a template on how reasoning skills could be applied without falling into the fallacy of dicto simpliciter[52] or the equally undesirable wall of faulty generalization.

The Neighbor principle as first expounded by Lord Atkin should not be seen therefore strictly as a principle in Law but as a philosophical proposition brought forward to advance the argument of the duty which every individual/entity owes to one another. Its roots support the notion that it is after all, a lesson in morality offered to members of the legal profession.

To regard it merely as a legal principle would be to not only limit its fundamental lesson as a guide to fairness in decision making by jurists but it also creates the illusion of irrelevance when applied to the changing circumstances in legal system and a society which Lord Atkin could not have conceived of in 1932. As a statement of Moral Philosophy however this principle becomes timeless and applicable not only within the confines of Tort but also other branches of Law such as Criminal law which in its essence concerns itself with the harms done to one’s neighbors.

The great American Jurist Oliver Wendell was once quoted as saying,

“The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience… and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics[53]”,

Donoghue is a reminder that law as an institution is created to regulate a society based on the principles of justice and right action and Lord Atkin’s articulation of the Neighbor principle remains to this day a shining reminder to jurists that these principles should be an essential component of their actions and judgments as representatives of the legal profession.


Cases and Statutes

Alien Tort Statute [1789] (28 USC § 1350)

Land Use Act [1978]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [1970] (Pub L 114-38)

The Torture Victim Protection Act [1991] (Pub L. 102-256)

 Alfred Apkan and Vereniging Milieudefensie, v Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Petroleum Development of Nigeria [2011] (337050 / HA ZA 09-1580)

Anns V Merton London Borough Council (2 EGLR 94)

Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co [1992] (1 SCR 1021)

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] (11 LDAB 563)

Central Trust Co Vs Raffuse [1986] (2 SCR 147)

Cooper v Hobart [2001] (3 SCR 537, 2001 SCC 79)

Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd [1949] (1 All ER 544)

Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] (AC 562,)

Edwards v the law society of Upper Canada [2001] (3 SCR 562)

Fidelis Ayoro Oguru and others v Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria [2011] (C/09/330891 / HA ZA 09-0579 and C/09/365498 HA ZA 10-1677)

George V Skivington [1869] (LR 5 Exch 1)

Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] (2 All ER 326)

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] (All ER Rep 209)

Harriton (by her tutor) v Stephens [2006] (HCA 15)

Heaven V Pender [1883] (11 QBD 503)

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] (8 LDAB 155)

Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen [1984] (2 SCR)

Langridge V Levy [1837] (2 M & W 519)

Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd; McGowan v Barr & Co [1929] (SC 461)

Murphy V Brentwood District Council [1991] (1 AC 398)

Winterbottom V Wright [1842] (10 M & W 109)

Wiwa v Anderson [2000] (No 01 Civ. 1909)

Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum [2000] (226 F3d 88)

Wiwa v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation [2000] (No 04 Civ. 2665)

Books and Journals

Barker K, Grantham R and Swain W, The Law of Misstatements: 50 Years on from Hedley Byrne v Heller (Hart Studies in Private Law) (Hart Publishing 2015)

Beever A, ‘The Declaratory Theory of Law’ (2013) Volume 33 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (GB) 421

Bhuta N, ‘The Ninth Life of the Alien Torts Statute— Kiobel and After’ (2014) Volume 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice

Chapman M, The Snail and the Ginger Beer (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill 2010)

Del Mar M, ‘System Values and Understanding Legal Language’ (2008) Volume 21 Leiden Journal of International Law 29

Engels F, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Penguin Modern Classics 2009)

Etherton J and others, ‘REMEDIES AGAINST PUBLIC BODIES A Scoping Report’ (The Law Commission)

Holmes OW, The Common Law ((1 ed), Macmillan 1881)

Igho A R, ‘Environmental Pollution in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: A Case of Oil Companies and Corporate Social Responsibility’(2009) Vol.30 Journal of development alternatives and area studies, 22

McGarrity L, ‘The Rise and Fall of Anns’ (1987) Volume 137 The New Law Journal

Neal ML, ‘The Niger Delta and Human Rights Lawsuits: A Search for the Optimal Legal Regime.’ (2011) Vol. 24 Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal p343

Nwapi, ‘A Legislative Proposal for Public Participation in Oil and Gas Decision-Making in Nigeria’ (2010) Volume 54 Journal of African Law 184

Patten K, ‘Personal Injury: Snail Trail’ (2012) Volume 162 The New Law Journal

Rafferty N, ‘Duty of Care and Causation in Canadian Tort Law’ (2010) Volume 26 Journal of Professional Negligence 149

Hoffman L, ‘Reforming the Law of Public Authority Negligence’ (The Bar Council)

Lacey N ‘Responsibility without Consciousness’ (2016) Volume 36 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 219

Amnesty International ‘SHELL’S GROWING LIABILITIES IN THE NIGER DELTA. Lessons from the Bodo Court Case’ (2015) Amnesty International Publication

Stychin CF, ‘The Vulnerable Subject of Negligence Law’ (2012) Volume 8 International Journal of Law in Context pp. 337

Wilson J, ‘Love Thy neighbour…Back Page Law Stories’ (2013) Volume 163 The New Law Journal 22

[1] [1932] AC 562.

[2] In 1990 several legal minds, made a pilgrimage to Paisley Scotland to the birthplace of the Donoghue and Stevenson case to commemorate its 60th anniversary.

[3] [1932] AC 562.

[4] Lord Tomlin and Lord Buckmaster dissenting

[5] [1929] SC 461.

[6] [1837] 2 M & W 519.

[7] [1842] 10 M & W 109.

[8] [1929] SC 461.

[9] Friedrech Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (first published in 1845 Otto Wigand, Leipzig) Pg37.

[10] These actions made the Manufacturer in Lord Atkin’s opinion responsible for the state of the final product as it reached Ms. Donoghue.

[11] [1869] LR 5 Exch 1

[12] [1883] 11 QBD 503

[13] The case of George v Skivington was succeeded on the basis of a breach of contract however it did set a precedent where third parties to a contract could claim for damages.

[14] Allan Beever, The Declaratory Theory of Law (2013) 33 (3): 421

[15] The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1984. Print.

[16] The story refers specifically to assisting people in need of assistance as the Samaritan becomes the example of right action in a case where a Levite and a priest chooses not to exercise care towards an individual who is in need of help and not necessarily to the concept of duty as it is applied here.

[17] Keith Patten, Personal injury: Snail trail (11 MAY 2012) 162 NLJ 643

[18] ibid

[19] Dicta of Brett [Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 5]

[20] [1964] 8 LDAB 155

[21] [1977] 2 EGLR 94

[22] [1990] 11 LDAB 563

[23] Lesley McGarrity, The Rise and Fall of Anns (August, 1987) 137 NLJ 794

[24] [1991] 1 A.C. 398

[25] Lesley McGarrity, The Rise and Fall of Anns (August, 1987) 137 NLJ 794

[26] [1936] All ER Rep 209

[27] [2006] HCA 15

[28] This Claim later became known as the “wrongful life” claim and was predicated on the basis that Ms. Harrington would have chosen to end the pregnancy had she been given the correct diagnosis.

[29] Indicating that decisions made by the Australian High Court were to some extent shaped by public opinion and mores and as such the concepts of Negligence too developed and was affected by public perception.

[30] Dicta of Crennan JC [Harriton (by her tutor) v Stephens (2006) HCA 15]

[31] Nicholas Rafferty, Duty of care and causation in Canadian tort law (2010) 3 PN 149–166

[32] ibid

[33] [1984] 2 S.C.R.

[34] [1992] 1 SCR 1021.

[35] [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147.

[36] [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537, 2001 SCC 79.

[37] [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562.

[38] Lewis N. Klar, Q.C., “Is Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle Still Relevant to Canadian Tort Law?” (2014) UWS

[39] [1949] 1 All ER 544.

[40] [2004] 2 All ER 326.

[41] [2011] 337050 / HA ZA 09-1580.

[42] Ibid 4

[43] [2d Cir. 2000] 226 F.3d 88.

[44] [2d Cir. 2000] No. 01 Civ. 1909.

[45] [2d Cir. 2000] No. 04 Civ. 2665.

[46] Alien Tort Statute 1789 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

[47] The Torture Victim Protection Act 1991 Pub.L. 102-256.

[48] The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 Pub. L. 114-38.

[49] [2011] 337050 / HA ZA 09-1580

[50] Micaela L. Neal, “The Niger Delta and Human Rights Lawsuits: A Search for the Optimal Legal Regime.” [2011] Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 343 

[51] [2011] C/09/330891 / HA ZA 09-0579 and C/09/365498 HA ZA 10-1677.

[52] assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.

[53] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law (first edition, published,1882, McMillan Press), pg.1