Preliminary Legal Studies - Donoghue v Stevenson

Facts

- The appellant, May Donoghue, claimed that on 26 August 1928 she drank some of the contents of a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by the respondent, which a friend had bought for her at a cafe in Paisley, Scotland.

- The bottle was opaque, Therefore the snail could not have been detected until the greater part of the contents was poured out.

- As a result Mrs Donoghue alleged that she suffered from shock and sever gastroenteritis

Remedies in Contract or Tort Law?

- Given that her friend had bought the drink, there was no contract between Mrs Donoghue and the retailer

- The friend who did have a contract with the retailer was unaffected by the event and could not seek damages on her behalf

- Contract law can only be invoked by parties to the contract

Donoghue v Stevenson

- Donoghue instituted proceedings against the manufacturer of the ginger beer (Stevenson)

- Liability arose because the manufacturer (respondent) owed the consumer (appellent) a duty to exercise reasonable care (Lord Atkin's neighbour principle)

- "A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care"

Res Judicata

- The decision reached by the court in determining the case before it is, subject to any appeal , a final resolution, of the issues raised in it, insofar as the parties to the proceedings are concerned.

The judicial hierarchy and precedent

- Decisions of courts outside the particular hierarchy are not binding but may be persuasive depending upon the status of the court.

- A previous decision of a court on the same level is generally not binding but will not be departed from unless the earlier decision was wrongly decided.

Rules of precedent

Binding precedent:

- When a precedent is binding, the court must follow it, whether the judge believes it or not

- In NSW, a precedent is binding when it has been set by a judge in a higher court eg. the NSW District court must follow the rulings of the NSW Supreme Court. However the District Court Judge is only bound by the 'ratio decidendi' (reason for the decision of the Supreme Court)

- Other Statements made by the Supreme Court Judge (known as the 'obiter dicter' or comments by the way, personal opinions.) may be taken into account by the District Court Judge do not create precedent.

- Precedent only applies if the case is sufficiently similar to the one that set the precedent. A precedent set by another Court in another jurisdiction is not binding eg. a precedent set in VIC is not binding in NSW

Persuasive Precedent

- Persuasive precedent may influence a judge's decision, but the court is not bound to follow it.

- Eg Judicial statements made by a judge or decisions made by courts in other jurisdictions. For examples, a decision made by a British Court may be quoted in a case in NSW but is not binding.

- How persuasive a precedent is will depend on two main factors.

- The judge - a court is more likely to consider a precedent set by an eminent and influential judge

- The Court - the higher the court the more persuasive the precedent will be.