| This article is a stub about Scottish law. You can help Jurispedia by expanding it, or use the search tool (UK law)... |
Delict involves matters of both civil and criminal e.g an assault can be heard as a criminal case as well as a civil case. The most famous example of this is OJ simpson.
Delict, also known more formally as Delictual Liability, is the body of Scottish law that relates to civil wrongdoing. It follows similar principles to that of the English law of tort, ultimately that the defender is entitled to compensation where he suffers legal injury as a result of the wrongdoing of the pursuer, through either intentional or unintentional acts.
The essence of the modern Scots law of delict is the obligation of a person to compensate another who has suffered harm as a result of the alleged wrongful actions of that person. This obligation to pay compensation is called reparation.
In Scots Law, we use the term culpa meaning fault, which must be identified to give rise to delictual liability. However, before that the law must recognise damnum injuria datum.
Duty of Care
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is one of the most famous cases in British legal history. It features a so called "emancipated snail" By "emancipated" we mean decomposing. It was found in Mrs Donoghue's ginger beer bottle. Mrs Donoghue was in a state of shock at this.
- She did not wish to see this snail
- She was owed a duty of Care - neighbourhood test applied. Duty of Care is discussed further at http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Duty_of_Care_(uk)
- "Who in law is my neighbour" (Lord Atkin)
The decision of the House of Lords founded the modern delict of negligence (http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Negligence_(uk) both in Scots law and across the world in common law jurisdictions. The case originated in Paisley, but the House of Lords declared that the principles of their judgment also applied in English law. It is often referred to as the "Paisley snail" or the "snail in the bottle" case.
Donoghue v Stevenson is authority that a duty of care exists where there is reasonable foreseeability that physical harm will come to a person’s physical property or themselves. The courts are reluctant to allow recovery in delict when the person has not suffered physical harm or has had property damaged.
- For Pure Economic Loss cases, is reasonable foreseeability of loss or damage enough for a duty of care to exist?
For PEL, in addition to reasonable foreseeability, there must be additional factors that point to a sufficient proximity of relationship so that it is fair, just and reasonable that a duty of care exists.
Relevant cases to Duty of Care
Donoghue v Stevenson Judgement
For Lord Atkin a duty of care arises when it is reasonably foreseeable by the defender that a person in the position of the pursuer would be affected by the defenders acts or omissions. A manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer because it is reasonably foreseeable that the ultimate consumer may be injured or his property may be damaged if the product is defective
The reasonable foreseeability critetion, while a necessary condition for the existence of a duty of care, might not be sufficient to persuade the court to impose a duty of care in areas where no precedent for such a duty exists. Initially, in relation to recovery in delict for pure economic loss the House of Lords refused to impose a duty of care simply because the loss was reasonably foreseeable in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman. Their Lordships held that not only had loss to the pursuer to be reasonably foreseeable but in addition there had to be:
- a close degree of proximity between the parties and
- it had to be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care 
Furthermore in Sutradhar (FC) v National Environmental Research Council, the defendant carried out tests on ground water system in Bangladesh for the purpose of discovering whether the water might contain toxic trace elements. At the time standard procedures for tesing ground water did not include tests for arsenic. Their Report made it clear that they had not done so. Four million shallow hand pumped wells were installed to supply drinking water. The water was contaminated with arsenic. The claimant was one of the thousands to suffer from arsenic poisoning. The House of Lords held that:
- the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care
- there was no proximity between the parites
On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928 May Donoghue, née M’Alister, boarded a tram in Glasgow for the thirty-minute journey to Paisley. At around ten minutes to nine, she and a friend took their seats in the Wellmeadow Café in the town's Wellmeadow Place. They were approached by the café owner, Francis Minchella, and Donoghue's friend ordered and paid for a pear and ice and an ice-cream drink. The owner brought the order and poured part of a bottle of ginger beer into a tumbler containing ice cream. Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. It was claimed that the remains of a snail in a state of decomposition plopped out of the bottle into the tumbler. Donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident.
Donoghue had not ordered or paid for the drink herself, so there was no contractual relationship between Donoghue and the café owner. The Scots law of delict at this time did not allow for Donoghue to sue the café owner. There was a contractual relationship between the café owner and the friend, but the friend had not drunk the ginger beer. Ginger beer was not:
- a dangerous product, and;
- the manufacturer had not fraudulently misrepresented it
At that time, those were the only two grounds for claiming negligence against a manufacturer. On the face of it, the law did not provide a remedy for Donoghue.
House of Lords Decision
Following the Court of Session ruling twice against Mrs Donoghue, she appealed in a petition to the House of Lords. They subsequently ruled in favour of her by a majority of 3 to 2. In Lord Atkin's judgement his "neighbour principle" is seen as the most significant to this case, ultimately creating the ratio decidendi. He stated:
"There must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. ...The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question: Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question."
In simple terms his principle is that a person owes a duty of care to those who it can be reasonably foreseen that his acts or omissions will cause harm.
Expansion of the Duty of Care
Over the years since Donoghue v Stevenson, the definition of a duty of care has rapidly expanded due to various cases. One of the most noted would be; Caparo industries Plc. v Dickman.This case created two new additions to the neighbourhood test. These were; proximity of relationship and policy, which poses the question, is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Thus creating a triparite test for duty of care. Taking each point in turn:
- Foreseeability of Injury
Hughes v Lord Advocate   Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Held: even although it was unforeseeable that a child would be injured in such a way in such circumstances, considering that an unattended site such as this would be likely to constitute an allurement for young children it was foreseeable that there was a risk of injury by burning. Since that was what in fact occurred, the nature of the damage was reasonably foreseeable and the boy won his case. It was decided that the type of injury arising from the wrong must be of a foreseeable type.
- Foreseeability of Damage
Also known as the neighbourhood test. This was established in Donoghue v Stevenson, and is explained clearly in the judgement of Lord Atkin.
- Proximity of Relationship
This is used to determine if the pursuer was a determinate or indeterminate class. It relates to the type of victim and the type of damage caused.
Is the pursuer a primary victim or a secondary victim? A primary victim is: someone who's loss is a direct consequence of the wrongful conduct. While a secondary victim is: is someone who's loss is a consequence of the loss suffered by the primary victim.
This poses the questions: is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? Therefore, would it be correct in the circumstances to impose a duty of care or would it cause more harm than good?
Standard of Care
Once a duty of care has been established, the standard of care that was expected must then be shown. The standard of care owed, as was established in the case Muir v Glasgow corporation, where the House of Lords held that the duty of the manageress was only to take reasonable care and not to prevent any accident occurring on the premises. This created the test that the standard is reasonable care in the circumstances. The standard will vary dependent on the circumstances.
Onus of Proof
Normally the onus of proof is upon the pursuer to show that the defender has not achieved the standard of care expected of him in the circumstances. However, this can be difficult if not impossible where the cause of an accident cannot be discovered. In these circumstances the doctrine of res "ipsa loquitur" (the facts speak for themselves) may be of use to the pursuer since it transfers the onus of proof to the defender. In other words, if the pursuer can successfully plead res ipsa loquitur the law presumes that the defender has been negligent and it is up to the defender to provide a plausible explanation for the accident which is inconsistent with his negligence.
Res Ipsa loquitur is a presumption or inference that the defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that the conditon causing the injury was in the defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident was one that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. It is a rule of evidence and there are three basic requirements:
- The inference of negligence where the incident would not have occured but for their negligence
- Exclusive control by the defendant - the defendant must be in total control of the accident
- Freedom for contributory negligence; the complainer cannot be at any fault
Ultimately, it is up to the jury to decide whether the doctrine will be accepted or not. It all depends upon the facts on each specific case.
Facts: S was injured when a bag of sugar fell onto him as he was walking past L’s warehouse. No one could say how the bag of sugar had come to fall on S.
Held: since L was in exclusive control of their warehouse and bags of sugar do not ordinarily fall out of warehouses without negligence, it was up to L to provide an alternative explanation. Since L could not, it was presumed that L had not achieved the standard of care expected.
Once the pursuer has established on the balance of probabilities that he was owed a duty of care by the defender, and that the defender’s failure to achieve the standard of care expected caused the loss or injury for which the pursuer is seeking a remedy, the pursuer may be said to have established a prima facie case. This means that ‘at first sight’ the pursuer will win and the onus of proof shifts to the defender. The defender can attempt to avoid liability or have the amount of damages which is sought by the pursuer reduced by putting forward appropriate defences are attempting to argue that the damage or injury for which the pursuer is seeking compensation is too remote a consequence of the defender’s negligence.
- Volenti non fit injuri
Volenti non fit injuria, or “a loss is not done to one who is willing” is a defence which can be made by the person accused of breaching the duty of care. A good example of this would be in a situation where a person is being sued for breach of duty of care by way of driving negligently and knocking a man down. The accused may bring forth a defence of volenti non fit injuria if the person who he knocked down had crossed the road at a crossing when the green man was not showing, thereby putting himself at risk of being injured.
Contributory Negligence is also a defence delictually. This occurs when more than one person is at fault, and two or more parties contributed to the pursuer's losses, which could be:
- economic, or
The case of Morris v Murray considers the question of whether a if a person who knowlingly embarks in an aeroplane flight with a drunk pilot is entitled to compensation for injury due to the aeroplane crashing. It was held that, as the pursuer was also drunk and knew of the pilot's drunken state, he was not entitled to compensation under volenti non fit injuria as he knowingly put himself into a position of risk.
- ↑ Donoghue v Stevenson  A.C. 562, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31,  All ER Rep 1]
- ↑ Sutradhar (FC) (Appellant) v. Natural Environment Research Council (Respondents)  UKHL 33
- ↑ Muir v Glasgow Corporation  UKHL 2 (16 April 1943),  AC 448,  2 All ER 44, 1943 SC (HL) 3, 1944 SLT 60
- ↑ Byrne v Boadle  EngR 1012; (1863) 2 H C 722; 159 ER 299, Court of Exchequer, United Kingdom 25 Nov 1863, source from CommonLII the Commonwealth Legal Information Institute
- ↑ Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Co  EngR 220; (1865) 3 H & C 596; 159 ER 665, Court of Exchequer, United Kingdom 7th February, 1865, source from CommonLII the Commonwealth Legal Information Institute
- ↑ Morris v Murray & Anor  2 QB 6,  3 All ER 801,  EWCA Civ 10 (03 August 1990)
- Find the notion in the UK legal internet