法律英语入门.ppt

On 9 April 1929, Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, an aerated water manufacturer in Paisley, in which she claimed ￡500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer which had been manufactured by him. The case was ultimately settled out of court and the facts were never established in a court of law. 30 The identity of Donoghue's friend is unknown, but that person is referred to as "she" in the case reports (including the first paragraph of the judgment of Lord MacMillan in the House of Lords). Other factual uncertainties include whether the animal (if it existed) was a snail or a slug; whether the bottle contained ginger beer or some other beverage (as 'ginger' in Glaswegian and West of Scotland parlance refereed to any fizzy drink) and whether the drink was part of an ice-cream soda. 31 Legal background In common law, a person can claim damages from another person where that other person owed them a duty of care and harmed them through their negligent action. This concept existed prior to Donoghue, but it was generally held that a duty of care was only owed in very specific circumstances, such as where a contract existed between two parties or where a manufacturer was making inherently dangerous products or was acting fraudulently. 32 There was no contractual relationship between Donoghue the drinks manufacturer or even, as Donoghue had not ordered or paid for the drink herself, between Donoghue and the café owner. Although there was a contractual relationship between the café owner and Donoghue's friend, the friend had not been harmed by the ginger beer. As ginger beer was not a dangerous product, and the manufacturer had not fraudulently misrepresented it, the case also fell outside the scope of the established cases on product liability. On the face of it, the law therefore did not