Undang-Undang Industri Dan Alam Sekitar

(ZILK6013)

Amir Ramly GP00003Muhammad Fauzan IsmailGP00035Mohd Hazri AliGP00027Mohamad Hafiz Mat Rohani GP00020Mohd Danial Abd Latif GP00024

• Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) is one of the most famous case in Scottish legal history.

• The decision of the House of Lords founded the modern tort of negligence both in Scots law and also English law.

• The case originated in Paisley, Scotland but the House of Lords declared that the principles of their judgment also applied in English and Welsh law.

• It is often referred as the “Paisley snail” or the “Snail in the bottle” case.

The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland.

It is both a court of first instance and a court of appeal and sits exclusively in Parliament House in Edinburgh.

The Court of Session Act 1810, divided the Court into the Outer House and the Inner House.

The Outer House is a court of first instance. Final judgments of the Outer House may be

appealed to the Inner House.

The Inner House is the senior part of the Court of Session, it is a court of appeal and a court of first instance.

The Inner House is the part of the Court of Session which acts as a court of appeal for cases from the Outer House and from appeals in civil cases.

Donoghue v stevenson is one of the most famous cases in scottish legal history.◦ House of lords founded the modern tort of negligence.◦ Also known as "paisley snails", or "snail in the bottle“

case

Donoghue, nee M' Alister, ordered and paid for a pear and ice cream. (which the ingredient include the ginger beer). ◦ the ginger beer contain decomposition snail.◦ only donoghue drank the water.◦ donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her

doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock

LEGAL ANALYSIS ◦ Donogh had not ordered or paid for the drink

herself, so there was no contractual relationship between donoghue and the cafe owner.

◦ Walter leechman of WG Leechman & Co in Glasglow's West George street, "the only solicitor in the world who would have taken donoghue case”.

◦ leechman was already an expert about this case. He already an expert on the danger of drinking ginger beer. He tried to liability against A.G Barr . (dead mouse in the bottle)

◦ Donoghue’s legal team- agreed provide their services free, she must ensure the side costs when she lost.- not required if she pauper.

Lord Atkin’s “neighbour” principle◦ deliver his speech, derived from the christisn

principle of “loving your neighbour”.◦ The lawyer ask about “who is my neighbour”.

(people that affected by your act and you must take responsibility.

• From the decision of court, the practical effect of this case was to provide individuals with a remedy against supppliers of consumer products even where the complainant had no privity of contract with those individual or company

• No contractual relationship• The manufacturer hadn’t fraudulently

misinterpreted bottle content• Manufacturer owed plaintiff duty to take

reasonable care• Gain status of pauper• Call for removal of the manufacturer

protection

Donoghue’s friend is unknown but only referred as “she”.

The animal in the bottle was uncertain whether it was a snail or slug

The manufacturer was liable for any damage if he fails to exercise reasonable care.

1st (1929): ◦ Stevensen won the case twice because no legal

basis to claim for damages against a manufacturer where no contract exist. = earlier decision in Muller v AG Barr (dead mouse in ginger beer)

2nd (1931):◦ After House of Lord granted the pauper status.◦ Lord Atkin – Loving your neighbour (in House of

Lord)◦ Donoghue’s legal team won by the smallest

margins (3/5) ◦ Donoghue’s executor settled out of court, not for

the original claim of £500

We agreed with the court’s decision. A decomposed snail in Scotland was the

humble beginning of the modern English and Scots law of negligence.

This case appeared in 1932. Base on Lord Atkins ‘ neighbour principle’, it showed the decision highly influenced by Bible – love your neighbour. These is no such legal acts and regulation existed related to ‘duty of care’ during that time.

OSHA – sec 17 ; General duties of employer by self –employed person to other than their employees

OSHA – sec 21 ; General duties of manufacturers

END

BACK

Privy Court

House of Lords

Court of Session

Outer House Inner HouseBACK

BACK

BACK

BACK

BACK