Business Law Donoghue V Stevenson Case Study
a) In the case of Donohue v Stevenson, Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer, not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty, Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn, the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore, Stevenson loss the case.
b) Regarding to the obiter dicta of the case, Lord Atkin, one of the case’s judges, had mentioned the “Neighbour Principle”, stated that a person is responsible not to harm another party or parties if he or …show more content…
The Samaratungas believe that they were going to die during that accident and that was the worst experience of death they ever had. Mrs Samaratunga suffered the most serious injuries, including spinal fractures, muscle tears and head injuries in which she lost several teeth. Mr Samaratunga was propelled head-first into the locker above his seat, hitting it so hard that it broke. He suffered spinal and other back injuries, headaches and trauma.
"We have provided immediate and ongoing support for all customers - those who were injured and those who were not," Qantas group general manager customer product and service Lesley Grant said.
From the points that we could see that the Samaratungas family has suffered a lot of pain such as muscles tears and head injuries. Besides, they have a bad trauma.
They are likely to succeed in suing against Qantas using three elements of negligence. Firstly, Qantas has a dufty of care to the passangers as 1. The damages were forseeable since the reasonable air line would have known that, if they are not prepared in any possible emergency cases, the damages can happen. 2. There were proximity between the passengers and Qantas, obviously, since the passengers are the clients of the air line. 3. There are no public policy that against the statement saying that the air line should be responsible for the safety of the passengers. Secondly, Qantas could prevent the incident to happen if