|Appears in Collections:||Law and Philosophy Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||The mouse and the snail: reappraising the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson Part 3 - wrongfulness, blameworthiness and "loss"|
|Keywords:||Duty of care|
|Citation:||Brown J (2022) The mouse and the snail: reappraising the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson Part 3 - wrongfulness, blameworthiness and "loss". <i>Scots Law Times</i>, 2022 (37), pp. 247-255.|
|Abstract:||Third in a four-part series. Identifies that the twin factors tying together all cases of 'delict' is the need to establish the 'wrongfulness' of the defender's act or omission as well as the 'blameworthiness' of the defender for the wrong. Notes that liability under damnum iniuria (i.e., Aquilian liability) has an additional requirement that is anterior to wrongfulness: the need to prove the occurrence of a legally recognised 'loss'. Suggests that liability under damnum iniuria is principally determined by assessing the 'remoteness' of the pursuer's 'damage' with the law recognising a divide between 'primary' and 'secondary' victims which goes beyond the cases of psychiatric injury in which the bifurcation has hitherto been recognised. Concludes by suggesting that the process of assessing the actionability of blameworthy wrongfulness under the principles of Aquilian liability by reference to 'remoteness of damages' renders the language of 'duty' - particularly the concept of the 'directional duty care' - otiose.|
|Rights:||This 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 (37), pp. 247-255. is available online on Westlaw UK. Reuse is allowed under an unrestricted use licence (CC BY).|
|The Mouse and the Snail Part 3.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||195.49 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 2023-12-01 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
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 https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.