Donoghue v Stevenson: Difference between revisions

Donoghue v Stevenson (view source)

45 bytes added , 3 April 2019

no edit summary

82,903

edits

Revision as of 17:57, 29 October 2018 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:12, 3 April 2019 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{cite\|Donoghue\|Stevenson\|1932\|AC\|532}} is a case so beloved of law students that the 1932 volume of the Appeals Cases falls open at page 532. Along with the leaking resevoir of {{casenote\|Rylands\|Fletcher}} it is one of the founding cases of the law of {{tag\|negligence}}.		{{cite\|Donoghue\|Stevenson\|1932\|AC\|532}} is a case, concerning snails and ginger-beer, which is so beloved of law students that the 1932 volume of the Appeals Cases falls open at page 532. Along with the leaking resevoir of {{casenote\|Rylands\|Fletcher}} it is one of the founding cases of the law of {{tag\|negligence}}.

	*Spod fact: I own a copy of the 1932 Appeals Cases, but evidently it has not seen active service in any library populated by live students, apparently has never been read, and so it doesn't fall open at page 532. Yet. It was quite an expensive experiment to get the wrong answer.		*Spod fact: I own a copy of the 1932 Appeals Cases, but evidently it has not seen active service in any library populated by live students, apparently has never been read, and so it doesn't fall open at page 532. Yet. It was quite an expensive experiment to get the wrong answer.