Donoghue v Stevenson
Donoghue sued the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer that she drank which contained snail remnants. As a result she became ill. The courts in hearing this case found that the manufacturer owed Donoghue a duty of care as she was their neighbour (someone who was affected by your acts or omissions) and they were reckless in preventing a foreseeable injury. This decision established the tort of negligence.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills:
Some years later Grant was injured as a result of purchasing woollen underwear made by Australian Knitting Mills. The garment had too much sulphate and caused him to have an itch. Here, the courts referred to the decision made earlier in Donoghue and decided to rule in Dr Grant's favour. Although the precedent established was only persuasive in that it originated outside of Australia, the courts decided that enough similar material facts existed. Here, Grant was a consumer who was injured as a result of the manufacturer's recklessness. The manufacturer could have reasonable foreseen that an injury could have occurred and that the consumer was a neighbour of the manufacturer.
From these two examples, it can be seen that precedent can be applied based similar material facts in order to ensure consistency and fairness.
Donoghue sued the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer that she drank which contained snail remnants. As a result she became ill. The courts in hearing this case found that the manufacturer owed Donoghue a duty of care as she was their neighbour (someone who was affected by your acts or omissions) and they were reckless in preventing a foreseeable injury. This decision established the tort of negligence.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills:
Some years later Grant was injured as a result of purchasing woollen underwear made by Australian Knitting Mills. The garment had too much sulphate and caused him to have an itch. Here, the courts referred to the decision made earlier in Donoghue and decided to rule in Dr Grant's favour. Although the precedent established was only persuasive in that it originated outside of Australia, the courts decided that enough similar material facts existed. Here, Grant was a consumer who was injured as a result of the manufacturer's recklessness. The manufacturer could have reasonable foreseen that an injury could have occurred and that the consumer was a neighbour of the manufacturer.
From these two examples, it can be seen that precedent can be applied based similar material facts in order to ensure consistency and fairness.