which are not courts have evolved a number of artificial techniques, which are concerned with the basic problems of what harms are included within the scope of unreasonable risk created by the Defendant and what interests the law deems worthy of protection against negligent interference in consonance with
116 current notions of policy. WINFIELD, in "Duty in Tortious Negligence" Vol. 34 (1934) Col. L.R 41 traces the history of duty to take care in Negligence.
117 (b) Old Cases Law Suggesting The Existence of Elements of Negligence Well before 1932 Decision of the House of Lords: Look for cases decided before 1932 suggesting that elements making up the modern Tort of Negligence have always been in existence before the great case of DONOGHUE V STEVENSON, 1932: READ: A Selection of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort, by Courtney Stanhope Kenny, Fifth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1928 . Most of these cases employ certain English words not in use today. You will later observe that when BRETT, MR (in Heaven v. Pender 1883 11 QBD 503, 509) and Lord Atkin (in Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562, 580) formulated their famous staments giving rise to the modern tort of negligence, they were in fact summarising developments contained in old Common Law as expressed in case law. I have enclosed these cases as AN APPENDIX II.
