Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T21:48:12.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lord Atkin and the Neighbour Test: Origins of the Principles of Negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Richard Castle
Richard Castle
Affiliation:
Lately Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In May 1932 the House of Lords delivered its judgement in the case about the presumed snail in the ginger beer bottle with which even non-lawyers are familiar, Donoghue v Stevenson. One of the five judges, Lord Atkin, formulated what has become known as the neighbour test in this way:

Type
Comment
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 33 , July 2003 , pp. 210 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2003

References

The author would like of thank the Revd. Roger Greeves, former Chaplain of Robinson College, for his help on the biblical aspects of this article.Google Scholar

1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 580. HL.Google Scholar

2 Material for this section is taken from the Dictionary of National Biography 1941–1950 and Lewis, Geoffrey, Lord Atkin (London, Butterworths, 1983).Google Scholar

3 Printed in Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law (1932) 27.Google Scholar

4 See Lewis, , Lord Atkin, p 56.Google Scholar

5 Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law (1932) 27 at 30.Google Scholar

6 Matthew, 7: 12.Google Scholar

7 Luke, 6: 31.Google Scholar

8 Leviticus, 19: 18.Google Scholar

9 Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Macmillan, 1971), vol 8, col 484.Google Scholar

10 See eg Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York, Macmillan, 1967), vol 3, p 365.Google Scholar

11 SirBuller, Francis, An Introduction to the Law relative to Trials at Nisi Prius (London, R Pheney and S Sweet) 7th edition (1817), p 24b,Google Scholar For a fascinating commentary. see Prichard, M J ‘Trespass, Case and the Rule in Williams v Holland [1964] Cambridge Law Journal 234.Google Scholar

12 Cited in Lewis, , Lord Atkin, p 57.Google Scholar

13 Luke, 10: 25–29.Google Scholar

14 See Spiers, Revd Kerr, ‘Who is My Neighbour?’ in Burns, Peter T. (ed) Donoghue v Stevenson and the Modern Law of Negligence (Vancouver, Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, 1991).Google Scholar

15 See Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1 at 11.Google Scholar

16 See Lewis, , Lord Atkin, p 57.Google Scholar

17 Cited in Lewis, , Lord Atkin, p 51.Google Scholar

18 Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 at 217, HL.Google Scholar

19 Fender v St John Mildmay [1938] AC 1 at 10. HL, a case on breach of promise of marriage.Google Scholar

20 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 at 50, HL.Google Scholar

21 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, HL.Google Scholar