Question

donaghue v stevenson when engaging in the determination of the existence of a duty of care we have to be careful how we frame our discussion of reasonable foreseeability. for example, if you suggest that the question to be asked is in relation to the foreseeability that a snail might get into a bottle prior to it being filled with soda, you might be inclined to say that it is not. the right way to look at this is whether it is foreseeable that an injury would occur to someone that consumes the product if there is a defect in the product. provide an example from your experiences where it could be said that someone owed a duty of care. did they breach a standard of care? did they cause an injury?

Answer 1

Donoghue v Stevenson established a legal precedent for the duty of care relating to product safety. An example of a breach is when an auto manufacturer knowingly sells cars with defective brakes, leading to accidents and injuries. In everyday life, we use judgment to prioritize conflicting prima facie duties.

Step-by-step explanation:

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the foundational principle in modern law regarding negligence and the duty of care. In this case, the court set out the requirement that when making a product, manufacturers must prevent foreseeable harm from coming to consumers. An example where this principle applies is when an automobile manufacturer discovers there is a defect in a car's brake system yet proceeds with production. When these defective cars lead to accidents and injuries, the manufacturer could be held liable as they have breached their standard of care towards consumers, having foreseen the potential danger and choosing to ignore it.

In relation to our day-to-day experience, we encounter circumstances where we owe prima facie duties, such as the duty to fulfill a promise or to provide help during emergencies. These duties may conflict, as illustrated in the example of choosing between helping an individual in need or keeping a commitment. In such situations, our duty is determined by the action that yields the 'greatest balance of prima facie rightness', according to philosopher William David Ross. This concept also relates to how we assess obligations in a legal context.