Lord Atkin's Judgement in Donoghue vs Stevenson (UKHL 100)

Stare Decisis
Name
Institution
Stare Decisis
Stare Decisis is a Myth
Stare Decisis offers the concept of precedent in that once an issue that has previously been brought to court and a decision reached, then generally, all courts should adhere to the previous ruling. However, this is a myth because stare decisis is not universally true in all instances. For example, judges from a court of appeal even when they agree to the result of the case, they may announce varying ratios or reasons which can be difficult to reconcile. Further, a judgment may comprise of reasons, but with no statement of even one proposition that can act as a coherent ratio or reason for deciding. It is also evident that courts cannot adhere to a previous ruling universally because sometimes they make judgments or decisions without providing any reasons. According to Lucke (1989), the common rule or precedent is not possible because the facts that a judge finds need to be quantifiable and his/her decision based on these facts. For example, in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson the fact that Lord Atkin found the presence of a snail material to the facts of the case made him make the decision to support Donoghue’s appeal. Without referring to any cases, Lord Atkin cited that in cases where things for human consumption are involved such as medicine and soap, there is need to be a duty of care to ensure safety. He declared that a legal remedy need to be applied when a social wrong is done that leads to negligence on the part of the suppliers or manufacturers (Perry, 1987).
Stare Decisis is Not a Myth
Stare decisis ensures that decisions that have been previously brought to court are honored by all lower courts. Generally, rulings made by previous courts will be honored by lower courts in any future judgements or decisions. The idea is to “stand by things decided” in all decisions that judges m...