Sick of Huge Negligence Payouts??

[Lakie]

Sick of Huge Negligence Payouts??

Well then you can blame a snail and an Australian buying pair of underwear.

The Tort of negligence dates back to 1932 when May Donaghue and a friend stopped for a drink. Donaghues friend ordered them both a drink, Mrs. Donaghue got a Ginger Beer, it came in a dark opaque bottle. In it was the decomposed remains of a Snail. As a result of drinking the contaminated product (but not the actual snail) Mrs. Donaghue said she suffered from nervous shock and severe gastro-enteritis. She then proceded to sue the manufacturer of the Ginger Beer (Stevenson).

This case was unique in that Mrs. Donaghue didnt actually purchase the drink herself, so it didnt fall under the 'let the buyer beware' thought of the time.

This was argued all the way to the House of Lords, the highest court in England (The closest american eqivalent is the Federal Senate, but it dosent sit as an appelate court).

This is where Lord Atkin ruled that the manufacturer must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the product it fit for human consumption.

This case is affectionately known as "The Snail in the Ginger Beer Bottle"

This set up the basis for negligence but so far it only only tested for food and drink. This is where the Aussie buying Underwear comes in...

Dr Grant purchased from John Martins 2 pairs on underwear manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. After wearing them he was bed ridden for 17 weeks and spent 3 months in Hospital after getting severe rashes caused by the sulfates in the stiching and a skin condition. He then proceded to sue John Martins for breach of contract and Australian Knitting Mills for negligence, he won on both accounts. On appeal the High court of Australia reversed both decisions.

Grant took his case to the highest court in the Australin Courts Heirarchy of the time, the Privy Council in England (The Privy council was eliminated in 1986 when the Australia Act was passed). They ruled in favor of Grant. This case now extended the reaches of negligence from food and drink to other products, and also ruled that even though the customer could fully see the product prior to purchase it still constituted negligence. Even though over 4.5 million of the same product was sold with no complaints.

So there you have it a snail and a Pair of long underwear is responsible for the high negligence payouts you hear about, which inturn spike your insurace bills.

And if you dont believe this plug one of these into google:
Donaldson vs. Stevenson
Snail in the Giner Beer Bottle
Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills