Talk:Donoghue v stevenson

Someone please read through this page and the one proposed to merge with it so that a concensus page can be made.

Interesting
This is a very interesting article. It appears to have been copied in from a published article, and furthermore appears to have been copied in from an article whose author has a serious axe to grind. I would suggest that it would do the case much more justice to provide a narrative of the case and how pivotal it is in the development of the Common Law, than to wallow in conspiracy thoeries as the final few paragraphs do. The conclusion in these final few paragraphs simply knock the whole article off balance as it seems that the early often quite informative narrative was simply marshalled to take a pop at lawyers at the end.

Therefore I dispute the neutrality of this article and have placed a tag in the article. I'd be quite happy for others to remove this should they think that this article really is balanced: for those that wish to verify this please keep reading to the end because it is the end of the article that I have an issue with.

BaseTurnComplete 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a very interesting article with much detail not taught to law students. However, the end rave is badly POV and needs to be addressed. Possibly by deleting it.


 * Avalon 10:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the end of the article isn't really relevent. I can't imagine how someone would make the association that a manufacturer not doing quality control on its product is the same as ridiculously outlandish lawsuits. this case demonstrates duty of care and is evidence of consumer protection, the evolution/perversion of the law post "paisley snail" is of little concern to the article.

CPJ. 25 January 2006

It should be merged with the other entry.Transnistria 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. The last two sections of the article add nothing, and indeed detract from the rest of what explains the case well. Perhaps just an edit removing the last two sections would suffice? They're nothing but an extremely mal-disguised attack on lawyers and the legal system itself. Agree with merging with the other article also.

echo_park00 23:24GMT, 29 January 2006 (UK)