What are the advantages and disadvantages on the law of negligence and rules of damages?

[osryd]

In relation to the Donoghue v Stevenson 1932, i would like to know what the advantages and disadvantages are?.. I can't seem to find anything online and my Law book doesn't contain this either.

For disadvantages, does it mean the opposite of what went in favour to the victim? For instance where Donoghue gained damages and proved that she was owed a duty of care and stevenson breached that duty of care. So a disadvantage would be if she couldn't prove that the company owed her a duty of care?

Need help to finish my Law Coursework. Thank you.

[ruelle]

No - that is not what it means by "advantage" and "disadvantage".
First, you have to understand why Donoghue v. Stevenson was important. While the outcome of the case was no doubt important to the Claimant, that isn't why the case is important to us. It is because Donoghue v. Stevenson changed the law. Before D v. S, if you were harmed by a defective product (like a bottle of beer with a decomposing snail in it) you had to sue the person who sold it to you - a contractual claim. D v. S held that the manufacturer of the beer could be liable in tort, so that instead of having to sue whoever sold you the beer, you could just sue the manufacturer directly.
What the question is asking is: what are the good and bad things about this change in the law? The good things are advantages and the bad things are disadvantages.