In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Lord Atkin attempted to create a basic Essay

In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Lord Atkin attempted to create a basic principle which could be used in all cases to decide whether or not duty of care is owed t - Essay Example of Murphy v Brentwood DC3 overruled this two fold test laid out in Anns and the liability of a violater of a duty of care was assumed to go beyond merely monetary considerations. This is what finally led to the development of the duty of care owed by every person towards another as laid out in the case of Caparo v Dickman4, which is the foundation of most tort cases today, with some contractual breaches also falling under the tortious breach of duty of care. The case of Donaghue v Stevenson5 was one of the first cases to establish the fact that remedies could exist in tort on the basis that all owe â€Å"a duty of care† to â€Å"their neighbor† and Lord Tomlin stated that â€Å"†¦acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief.† On the basis of a moral principle that every person owes a duty to other people because they are neighbours, Lord Atkin refined this further by clarifying a duty of care that one owes to a neighbor as follows: â€Å"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour†¦.you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.†6 The case of Donaghue laid out the general principle that since every person owed others a duty of care based upon the fact that they were neighbors, therefore any breach of that duty could prove to be adequate grounds for seeking damages. However, the criteria and qualifications of this duty of care were explored in the economic context in the case of Anns v Merton Borough London Council7 wherein it was held that economic losses caused by a breach of contract that occurred through negligence would be valid and actionable under tort law. A two way test was set out in this case as follows: (a) was there a sufficient neighbour relationship or a level of proximity between the two