NEIGHBOUR THEORY

Introduction:                In case of negligence, the plaintiff has to prove that there was duty to take care, there was breach of duty on the part of the defendant and it has resulted into injury to the legal right of the plaintiff.  The duty to take care is a relative term, which changes from fact to fact and case to case.  There is no general rule of defining such duty.  The degree of care changes from circumstances to circumstances.  The defendant to take at least that much of care which ordinary prudent man can take.  But there are certain category of persons from whom higher degree of care is expected, because they are neighbor in law and they must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which they can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure their neighbor.

Case Law

Donoughe Vs. Stevenson:                 The plaintiff accompanied her friend and went to restaurant and order for bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendants.  The bottle of ginger-beer was sealed and of opaque glass.  A part of the contents of the bottle were served to the plaintiff and after she had taken that and when the remaining ginger-beer was poured into her glass, the decomposed remains of snail floated out.  As a result of having consumed the injurious drink, she had suffered in her health hence sued the defendants claiming compensation.  The House of Lord held that in these circumstances, the manufacture owed a duty of care towards the consumer and hence liable.

Rule laid down in the case

Lord Atkin laid down following rules in this case,

"A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care"

Application of the Rule

The liability under the above mentioned rule has not remained limited only to the manufacturers of product, it has been extended to include repairers, assemblers, builders and suppliers. It has also been held to include erections. The application of the rule has also been extended in respect of the subject matter.  It is no more limited to articles of food and drink only.  It has been held to include underwear, motor cars, hair-dyes, tombstones and lifts.

The manufacturers and distributors of the goods can be made liable for their negligence under the rule in Donoughe Vs. Stevenson.