Landmark Negligence Cases That Changed Personal Injury Law

6 November 2025

Toby Patrick

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Success Starts with Choosing the Right Business for You

Guy Fawkes, Dick Turpin and the Hidden Histories of York

The Lip King: We Need To Take Action On Unlicensed Practitioners

Personal injury law is vital for those who have suffered from negligence or a lack of care with their injury and therefore seek compensation. Over time, several landmark cases have completely transformed personal injury law. Below, we look at some of the key cases that have shaped modern legal principles and how they continue to impact lives today.

Classical building with ornate columns and statues under a cloudy sky. Weathered stone and detailed sculptures convey a historic feel.

Palsgraf vs Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

One of the oldest and most famous cases in personal injury law is the claim of Helen Palsgraf against Long Island Railroad Co. In this case, Helen was injured when a package containing fireworks exploded on the railroad tracks. The explosion occurred as railway employees were assisting a man boarding a train.

Helen Palsgraf sued for her injuries, which led to a major debate over liability. The court ultimately ruled that the railroad company was not liable, as the harm was not foreseeable. This decision introduced the concept of foreseeability into the doctrine of negligence, emphasising that liability depends on whether harm is a reasonably predictable consequence of the defendant’s actions.

Donoghue vs Stevenson (1932)

Another landmark case from the early 1930s, this one transformed personal injury law across the world. May Donoghue became ill after drinking a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. Although her friend purchased the drink, Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for damages.

The court concluded that Stevenson had a duty of care to ensure the safety of their products, even without direct contact between the manufacturer and consumer. This case established the modern principle of negligence and influenced similar legal doctrines internationally.

Baker v. City of St. Louis (1967)

In this case, Baker sued the City of St. Louis after being injured while attempting to board a bus. He argued that the city failed to ensure proper maintenance of its buses and adequate training of drivers. The city claimed sovereign immunity, meaning it could not be sued.

However, the court ruled that the city could be held liable under the doctrine of negligence. This case reshaped the modern understanding of government liability, ensuring that cities cannot rely on sovereign immunity when negligence or personal injury is involved.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Although best known as a landmark decision in reproductive rights, Roe v. Wade also had implications for personal injury and medical law. Jane Roe challenged Texas laws that prohibited abortion, arguing for her right to privacy.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. While primarily focused on bodily autonomy, the case reinforced the importance of medical rights and personal safety, principles closely related to personal injury and negligence law.

Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (1978)

In this case, Berg sought compensation from Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company under his insurance policy. The dispute centred on how the company interpreted policy coverage. The court ruled that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to victims based on technicalities or unclear wording, describing such behaviour as professional negligence.

This case transformed the way insurance contracts are written, reinforcing the need for fairness and transparency between insurers and policyholders.

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case: Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994)

Perhaps the most famous personal injury case of all time, this lawsuit involved Stella Liebeck, who suffered third-degree burns after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s. She was hospitalised and incurred serious medical expenses.

The jury found that McDonald’s had acted with gross negligence by serving coffee at a dangerously high temperature. The case sent shockwaves through the legal and corporate world, leading to stronger consumer protection laws and the introduction of visible safety warnings on hot beverage containers.

It also sparked global debate about corporate responsibility, personal accountability and public perception of compensation claims.

Summary

Personal injury law continues to evolve through court decisions that balance fairness, duty of care and responsibility. From the snail in the bottle to the coffee cup warning, each case has shaped how we understand negligence and justice in everyday life.

While not every claim succeeds, these landmark rulings have transformed the modern legal landscape, ensuring that individuals and institutions are held accountable for the safety and well-being of others.

Current Most Read

Labour's Landslide: A Victory Masking Deeper Political Shifts and Rising Far-Right Sentiments in the UK

Connor Banks
Jul 8, 2024
2 min read

For the first time in over 14 years, the Conservative Party has been ousted from power. In the election held on July 4, 2024, Labour emerged victorious with a commanding supermajority, winning 412 seats in the House of Commons. The Tories, in stark contrast, were reduced to just 121 seats, with high-profile MPs like Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Penny Mordaunt, and Grant Shapps losing their constituencies. The British public has spoken: they no longer want Conservative rule. But this isn't necessarily a wholehearted endorsement of Labour, as a closer look at the results reveals.

An Illusion of Victory

Yes, Labour has secured 412 seats, the most since Tony Blair's time. However, when we delve into the numbers, this victory appears less overwhelming. In reality, Keir Starmer's Labour received fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn's (who also won as an independent in his constituency by a large margin) "unelectable" campaigns in 2017 and 2019. This year, Labour garnered only 9,660,081 votes, compared to 12,877,918 in 2017 and 10,295,912 in 2019. This suggests that Starmer's win was driven more by a desire to oust the Tory government than a genuine surge in support for Labour. This trend was especially evident in the South of England, where the Liberal Democrats captured numerous traditionally Conservative seats through tactical voting. So, if this election was more about rejecting the Tories, what does this mean for the future of Britain?

The Rise of Reform

Another significant point of concern is the surprising performance of Reform UK. Although they won only four constituencies, they received 4,117,221 votes, making them the third most popular party by vote count. Why should this worry us if they only secured four seats?

The concern arises from the fact that an openly far-right party attracted so many votes, which could push the political landscape further in that direction. The Conservative Party might attempt to lure these voters by adopting more extreme policies, as they did with Brexit and the Rwanda immigration plan. This phenomenon isn't unique to the UK. In Germany, right-wing parties have increasingly aligned with far-right nationalists to capture additional votes. If the Tories follow suit, even if Starmer's Labour governs effectively for the next five years, they could potentially regain power by leaning further right. More alarmingly, the 4 million votes for Reform UK signal that a significant portion of the electorate is comfortable supporting far-right ideologies. With similar movements gaining momentum across Europe in countries like Germany, Sweden, and France, it's not hard to envision a future where our democracy could be threatened by a far-right populist wave.

Navigating an Uncertain Future

As Labour steps into power with a historic supermajority, the true story of this election unfolds beneath the surface. The results reveal a painting of voter dissatisfaction, strategic alliances, and the troubling rise of far-right sentiments. While the victory marks a significant shift in the UK's political landscape, it also underscores the fragility of democratic ideals in the face of populist movements. The coming years will test Starmer’s ability to govern effectively and the nation's resilience against the pull of extreme ideologies. Britain's political future, now more uncertain than ever, will be shaped by how these forces are navigated and addressed.