In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) 54 CLR 49, the UK Privy Council (‘PC’) upheld the appeal brought by the plaintiff concerning the decision of the High Court of Australia. The PC held that the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia was correct in finding that both the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, and the retailer, James Martin & Co, were liable to the plaintiff, Dr Grant. 

Required: 

With reference to Grant v AKM above, and also the earlier UK House of Lords decision in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, discuss the nature and significance of the “neighbour principle” in respect of the duty of care element in a common law action in the tort of negligence

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE The neighbour principle was produced by Lord ... View the full answer