M
Montalban
Guest
Comments are welcome:
Too many times people make argument that if there’s any Christian influence left in society, it’s negative. Here’s a strong, and positive one.
“If you were to ask lawyers from around the world to name the most famous tort case in legal history, they would say without hesitation Donoghue v. Stevenson.”
thepaisleysnail.com/information.shtml (see Appendix below for more details on the case)
From this case we have the modern laws protecting people in cases of Tort (Negligence). It is tied directly into Christian teaching because Lord Atkin, stating the majority decision, noted he was influenced by the Biblical concept of ‘neighbour’
“Lord Atkin himself apparently agonised over the decision, and I recall that his daughter wrote that he discussed the decision with his family, and told them that he was intending to apply the Parable of the Good Samaritan* to the facts of the case.”
Margaret A McGregor Vennel, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Auckland
[1990] New Zealand Law Journal 383-384
reprinted in Latimer, P (Ed.), (1997), “Commercial Law Workbook” (2nd ed), p477
"Sir Kenneth concludes by appealing to the Biblical basis of land tenure as “hallowed by history.” And he quotes Chief Rabbi J Hertz as affirming that, “‘The Earth is the Lord’s’ (Psalms 24:1) and His people hold their lands in fee from Him. The ground itself, then, was not a proper object of sale, but only the result of man’s labour on the ground.” Writing elsewhere, Sir Kenneth notes that the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 (concerning liability where a snail had been found by a girl in a bottle of ginger beer which had allegedly sickened her) was decided by Lord Atkin with direct reference to the New Testament precedent of the Good Samaritan and its implication that we have a duty to our “neighbour.”
alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_carbeth.htm
Also
" Sir Kenneth Jupp, for 15 years an English High Court judge, notes that the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 (concerning liability where a snail had been found by a girl in a bottle of ginger beer which had allegedly sickened her) was decided by Lord Atkin with direct reference to the New Testament precedent of the Good Samaritan and its implication that we have a duty to our “neighbour” (pers. com., 1999)."
alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_trident.htm
**”This decision was immediately accepted in England as a milestone in the development of common law - as recognising a 'tort of negligence… Donoghue v Stevenson has had almost revolutionary importance to the common law world as a whole. **The trail of the snail leads from London to Adelaide, from Ottawa to Singapore.”
Smith, T B., (1961) “British Justice: The Scottish Contribution”, pp51-52
“For the Christian Church, it was the legal affirmation of the basic moral precept that one should “love thy neighbour” or at least not to do anything to hurt him or her…”
Thooher, J “Still silvery on its diamond jubilee? On the trail of that elusive snail” in Law Institute Journal Vol 66 [1992] 382
Appendix:
I shall give a bit of info about the case. Ms Donaghue attended a restaurant wherein she had a meal and a bottle of ginger-beer. The bottle was opaque (so you couldn’t see the contents), and was still sealed (that it had come like that direct from the factory). She had some of the drink, then a bit more and noticed the decomposing bits of a snail inside the drink. She became ill. She took Stevenson to court (his company made the drink), however, as no contract existed between her and the drink maker, that she had no right under existing law (because the contract existed between the Stevenson and the restaurant, and then a contract between Donaghue and the restaurant.
This case went all the way to the House of Lords. The minority ruling was against the applicant. That up till this point people were unprotected in law. Lord Buckmeister, one of the two dissenting Law Lords said basically “There’s no law protecting her, therefore it should be thrown out!”*
Commenting on a lower court… “The Court below had proceeded on the general principle that in an ordinary case a manufacturer is under no duty to any one with who he is not in contractual relation…”**
1932 Law Reports, House of Lords, p534. also cited as 1932 Law Reports 534
*Lord Buckmesiter in voicing the minority decision said “Now the common law must be sought in law books by writers of authority and in judgments of the judges entrusted with its administration. The law books give no assistance…There can be no special duty attaching to the manufacture of food apart from that implied by contract or imposed by statute.”
**There were two legislated exceptions…
a) when the product was of its nature dangerous (e.g. TNT)
b) when the article is dangerous to the knowledge of the manufacturer.
Too many times people make argument that if there’s any Christian influence left in society, it’s negative. Here’s a strong, and positive one.
“If you were to ask lawyers from around the world to name the most famous tort case in legal history, they would say without hesitation Donoghue v. Stevenson.”
thepaisleysnail.com/information.shtml (see Appendix below for more details on the case)
From this case we have the modern laws protecting people in cases of Tort (Negligence). It is tied directly into Christian teaching because Lord Atkin, stating the majority decision, noted he was influenced by the Biblical concept of ‘neighbour’
“Lord Atkin himself apparently agonised over the decision, and I recall that his daughter wrote that he discussed the decision with his family, and told them that he was intending to apply the Parable of the Good Samaritan* to the facts of the case.”
Margaret A McGregor Vennel, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Auckland
[1990] New Zealand Law Journal 383-384
reprinted in Latimer, P (Ed.), (1997), “Commercial Law Workbook” (2nd ed), p477
"Sir Kenneth concludes by appealing to the Biblical basis of land tenure as “hallowed by history.” And he quotes Chief Rabbi J Hertz as affirming that, “‘The Earth is the Lord’s’ (Psalms 24:1) and His people hold their lands in fee from Him. The ground itself, then, was not a proper object of sale, but only the result of man’s labour on the ground.” Writing elsewhere, Sir Kenneth notes that the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 (concerning liability where a snail had been found by a girl in a bottle of ginger beer which had allegedly sickened her) was decided by Lord Atkin with direct reference to the New Testament precedent of the Good Samaritan and its implication that we have a duty to our “neighbour.”
alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_carbeth.htm
Also
" Sir Kenneth Jupp, for 15 years an English High Court judge, notes that the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 (concerning liability where a snail had been found by a girl in a bottle of ginger beer which had allegedly sickened her) was decided by Lord Atkin with direct reference to the New Testament precedent of the Good Samaritan and its implication that we have a duty to our “neighbour” (pers. com., 1999)."
alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2000_trident.htm
**”This decision was immediately accepted in England as a milestone in the development of common law - as recognising a 'tort of negligence… Donoghue v Stevenson has had almost revolutionary importance to the common law world as a whole. **The trail of the snail leads from London to Adelaide, from Ottawa to Singapore.”
Smith, T B., (1961) “British Justice: The Scottish Contribution”, pp51-52
“For the Christian Church, it was the legal affirmation of the basic moral precept that one should “love thy neighbour” or at least not to do anything to hurt him or her…”
Thooher, J “Still silvery on its diamond jubilee? On the trail of that elusive snail” in Law Institute Journal Vol 66 [1992] 382
Appendix:
I shall give a bit of info about the case. Ms Donaghue attended a restaurant wherein she had a meal and a bottle of ginger-beer. The bottle was opaque (so you couldn’t see the contents), and was still sealed (that it had come like that direct from the factory). She had some of the drink, then a bit more and noticed the decomposing bits of a snail inside the drink. She became ill. She took Stevenson to court (his company made the drink), however, as no contract existed between her and the drink maker, that she had no right under existing law (because the contract existed between the Stevenson and the restaurant, and then a contract between Donaghue and the restaurant.
This case went all the way to the House of Lords. The minority ruling was against the applicant. That up till this point people were unprotected in law. Lord Buckmeister, one of the two dissenting Law Lords said basically “There’s no law protecting her, therefore it should be thrown out!”*
Commenting on a lower court… “The Court below had proceeded on the general principle that in an ordinary case a manufacturer is under no duty to any one with who he is not in contractual relation…”**
1932 Law Reports, House of Lords, p534. also cited as 1932 Law Reports 534
*Lord Buckmesiter in voicing the minority decision said “Now the common law must be sought in law books by writers of authority and in judgments of the judges entrusted with its administration. The law books give no assistance…There can be no special duty attaching to the manufacture of food apart from that implied by contract or imposed by statute.”
**There were two legislated exceptions…
a) when the product was of its nature dangerous (e.g. TNT)
b) when the article is dangerous to the knowledge of the manufacturer.