not denied. But want of attention amounting to a want of ordinary care is not a good cause of action, although injury ensue from such want, unless the person charged with such want of ordinary care had a duty to the person complaining to use ordinary care in respect of the matter
113 called in question. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the Defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the Plaintiff, without contributory negligence on his part suffered injury to his person or property. HEAVEN VS PENDER is the historical point at which DUTY CARE was clinched in the law of negligence. The modern pronouncement of a general formula for "DUTY" is Lord Atkin's `neighbour test' in DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON [1932] AC 562, 580, where: A manufacturer of ginger beer had sold to a retailer ginger- beer in an opaque bottle. The retailer resold it to A who treated a young woman of her acquaintance to its contents. The contents of the bottle included the decomposed remains of a snail which had found its way into the bottle at the factory. The young woman alleged that she became seriously ill in consequence and sued the manufacturer for negligence. There was of course no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer towards her - but a majority of the House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain noxious matter and that he would be liable if that duty was broken. Before the House of Lords decision in DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON, courts had
