Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Tort Assignment Due Friday

    Uploaded by

    Chai shadrack
    The document discusses breach of duty in tort law. It analyzes the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and establishes that the defendant Stevenson breached his duty of care by failing to properly inspect ginger beer bottles before filling them, which allowed a snail to contaminate the beer and cause the claimant harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tort Assignment Due Friday

    Uploaded by

    Chai shadrack
    13 views3 pages
    The document discusses breach of duty in tort law. It analyzes the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and establishes that the defendant Stevenson breached his duty of care by failing to properly inspect ginger beer bottles before filling them, which allowed a snail to contaminate the beer and cause the claimant harm.

    Original Description:

    Only torts

    Original Title

    Tort assignment due friday

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses breach of duty in tort law. It analyzes the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and establishes that the defendant Stevenson breached his duty of care by failing to properly inspect ginger beer bottles before filling them, which allowed a snail to contaminate the beer and cause the claimant harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views3 pages

    Tort Assignment Due Friday

    Uploaded by

    Chai shadrack
    The document discusses breach of duty in tort law. It analyzes the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and establishes that the defendant Stevenson breached his duty of care by failing to properly inspect ginger beer bottles before filling them, which allowed a snail to contaminate the beer and cause the claimant harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    GROUP 14 TORT DISCUSSION

    GROUP MEMBERS
    1. Wayne Magori G34/3494/2022
    2. Newseen Nyongesa G34/3383/2022
    3. Grace Karanja G34/3306/2022
    4. Karanja Mark G34/3495/2022
    5. Winnie Rose G34/3308/2022
    6. Chai Shadrack G34/3305/2022
    7. Henry Junior G34/3337/2022
    8. Jean Mbithe G34/3307/2022
    9. Peterson Lesaina G34/3368/2022
    10. Beatrice Watetu G34/3310/2022
    11. Simon Kinyanjui G34/3423/2022
    12. Yvonne Jebichi G34/3487/2022
    13. Jacob Kiarie G34/3493/2022

    BREACH OF DUTY
    This occurs when a duty of care exists but was not followed
    Can be defned as the failure of a eersonss conduct to meet an aeelicable standard of care

    Standard of care-this is how the law exeects a reasonable eerson to act if elaced in a similar
    situation or circumstance as the defendant in a case
    Reasonable person-a reasonable eerson is hyeothetically a eerson who acts with sense and
    erudent judgment so that their action may not cause injury to others.
    HOW DOES ONE DETERMINE BREACH OF DUTY
    -The claimant has to erove that the defendant that owed a duty of care to them failed to
    exercise reasonable care .The claimant needs to show that the defendantss actions led to the
    claimant sufering loss.
    -breach of duty can be determined in three stees;
    1. .whether from the defendants actions injury would arise
    2. .Did the defendant try to evade the risk
    3. .The social utility value of the defendantss conduct
    -This can be seen as in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson
    FACTS OF THE CASE
    -Donoghue sought to get comeensation and recover damages afer consuming a ginger beer
    that had been manufactured by Stevensonss comeany .The beer had contained decomeosed
    earts of a snail .This made a nauseating site making the comelainant sufer shock and was
    diagnosed with gastro-enteris
    -it was established that Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty of care because;
     He had failed to erovide a system that keet snails from the ginger beer consumed by
    customers
     He had failed to erovide a good inseection system for booles before beer was flled in
    them
    And according to Lord Atkinsss neighbour erinciele Stevenson had a reseonsibility as a
    manufacturer to ensure the eroduct was safe for consumetion
    -Through the three stees, we can establish if there was indeed a breach of duty in this case.

    STEPS TO ESTABLISH BREACH OF DUTY


    1. WHETHER FROM THE DEFENDANTS ACTION INJURY WOULD ARISE
    -The defendantss action of failing to inseect the booling of his eroduct, the beer, could lead to
    contamination of the beer, which it did, and caused harm to the customer Donoghue who
    sufered shock and gastro enteris
    2. DID THE DEFENDANT EVADE THE RISK?
    -Failure of the defendant, Stevenson, to establish a eroeer monitoring, cleaning and inseection
    system in his manufacturing comeany show that he did not try to evade the risk of his eroducts
    being contaminated and causing harm to his eotential customers.
    3. THE SOCIAL UTILITY VALUE OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT
    -SOCIAL UTILITY-This is the general wellbeing of many eeoele
    -the defendant failed to ensure that the beer was eure .He let out the contaminated beer into
    the market exeosing many eeoele and mainly the general eublic to the contaminated eroduct
    that was likely to cause injury to them.

    -in conclusion ,our obiter dicta was that Stevenson breached his duty of ensuring he let out
    safe eroducts for his customers to consume
    WHAT WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON DO?
    In this case ,itss our assumetion that a reasonable eerson would ensure a eroeer monitoring
    and inseection system to avoid contamination .This would ensure the comeany releases eroeer
    eroduct to the market that donst cause injury to its users.

    Other case ;Vaughan v Menlove (1837)132 ER 490(CP)

    You might also like