Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Jonathanen_UK
dc.description.abstractFinal article in a four-part series. Argues that notwithstanding the fact that the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 71 is celebrated in Scotland, the 'duty of care' concept which it cemented in Scots law is in fact nugatory. Contends that the principle of 'remoteness of damages' - still used in practice today, with the law pertaining to such clarified by Simmons v British Steel Plc 2004 SC (HL) 94 - in fact serves to properly limit the actionability of claims for wrongfully caused loss. Suggests that reference to both the 'duty of care' principle and 'remoteness' principle results in a confusing and unnecessary duplication of conceptual effort, even in those cases in which Professor Wilson suggested that the 'duty' idea might be fruitfully employed. Concludes by suggesting that the Scots law of delict - more or less directly as a result of the decision in Donoghue - is in danger of fragmenting into an unstructured mass of 'deliticles' a la the Common law system and that such would be a regrettable (and indeed ironic) development.en_UK
dc.publisherSweet and Maxwellen_UK
dc.relationBrown J (2022) The Mouse and the Snail: Reappraising the Significance of Donoghue v Stevenson Part IV - "Remoteness", not "Duty". <i>Scots Law Times</i>, 2022 (38).en_UK
dc.rightsThis item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Scots Law Times following peer review. The definitive published version Brown J (2022) The mouse and the snail: reappraising the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson: Part 1 - a case worth celebrating? Scots Law Times, 2022 (38) is available online on Westlaw UK. Reuse is allowed under an unrestricted use licence (CC BY).en_UK
dc.subjectDonaghue vs Stevensonen_UK
dc.subjectScots Lawen_UK
dc.subjectdelictual liabilityen_UK
dc.titleThe Mouse and the Snail: Reappraising the Significance of Donoghue v Stevenson Part IV - "Remoteness", not "Duty"en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[The Mouse and the Snail Part 4.pdf] Publisher requires embargo of 12 months after publication.en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleScots Law Timesen_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.contributor.funderUniversity of Strathclydeen_UK
dc.description.notesOutput Status: Forthcomingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Strathclydeen_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
local.rioxx.authorBrown, Jonathan|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|University of Strathclyde|
local.rioxx.filenameThe Mouse and the Snail Part 4.pdfen_UK
Appears in Collections:Law and Philosophy Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
The Mouse and the Snail Part 4.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version184.52 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 2024-01-01    Request a copy

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.