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

Streaming Fatigue – How Subscription Overload Is Changing the Way We Watch TV

Online piracy is rising again: why it happened and what it means

Why the Future of Work Depends on Emotional Intelligence, Not Automation

Navigating the Royal Path: A Deep Dive into British Royal Succession

Paul Francis
Feb 7, 2024
3 min read

Store window display on The Stand, London, to celebrate the Marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, 1981 — Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

This week, news of King Charles's recent cancer diagnosis has sparked conversations about the future of the British monarchy. With the diagnosis caught early, the question lingers: could Prince William find himself ascending the throne sooner than expected? Delving into the intricacies of royal ascension is like unravelling a captivating saga, and I'm here to guide you through it. So, buckle up as we embark on a journey to explore the fascinating world of British Royal Succession, understanding its nuances, and uncovering the recent changes that shape its path.

1. Primogeniture and Its Historical Significance:

Primogeniture, derived from Latin, translates to "firstborn," a principle deeply embedded in the fabric of royal succession. Historically, this practice aimed to bring order to the line of inheritance, ensuring a clear and uncontested path for the eldest child to ascend the throne. The concept echoes through centuries, portraying a visual narrative of a lineage where the firstborn son stands poised to carry the weight of the crown.

2. Male-Preference Cognatic Primogeniture:

Now, let's take a step back into an era where gender played a defining role in succession. Male-Preference Cognatic Primogeniture, an age-old tradition, accorded preference to male heirs over their female counterparts. This meant that even if an elder sister was born before her younger brother, the throne awaited him. The dynamics of royal succession were influenced not only by birth order but also by the gender of the heirs, creating a hierarchy within the royal family.

3. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013: A Modern Shift:

The turning point in the royal succession narrative comes in the form of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. This legislative milestone marks a departure from centuries-old norms by dismantling the gender biases entrenched in the system. With absolute primogeniture now in play, the eldest child, whether a prince or a princess, takes centre stage. The Act is a testament to the monarchy's adaptability, aligning itself with contemporary principles of equality and fairness.

4. Direct Descendants and Extended Family:

Navigating the family tree of the British monarchy reveals a dynamic interplay of direct descendants and extended family members. The direct line includes children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, forming the core branch of the royal genealogy. Beyond this direct line, siblings of the reigning monarch and their descendants add complexity to the succession hierarchy. This intricate web of familial connections ensures a robust and comprehensive order of succession, balancing direct lineage with broader family ties.

5. Marriage and Religion: Legal Changes in the Succession Rules:

In the realm of royal marriages, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 introduces significant shifts. Previously, marriage required the monarch's approval, and marrying a Catholic could alter one's position in the line of succession. The Act, however, liberates royal hearts, allowing love to blossom without the need for regal consent. It also eliminates the disqualification for marrying a Catholic, emphasizing personal choice over religious affiliations in matters of the heart.

6. Parliamentary Approval and Constitutional Dynamics:

Behind the scenes of royal succession, the political stage takes centre focus. Any substantial changes to the rules of succession demand the scrutiny and approval of the United Kingdom's Parliament. This democratic safeguard ensures that alterations to the constitutional framework of the monarchy are subject to thorough debate and democratic approval. It adds a layer of checks and balances, highlighting the intersection of tradition and modern governance within the royal framework.

As we navigate the twists and turns of the British royal succession, it's clear that the monarchy is a dynamic institution, blending tradition with the demands of the times. With King Charles's health in the spotlight, the question of succession takes on a new relevance. The journey from primogeniture to absolute primogeniture tells a tale of adaptation, progress, and a monarchy evolving to reflect the values of the world it serves. So, join me as we uncover the secrets and stories behind the regal path that winds through the heart of the British monarchy.