Duty of Care and the media

In 1928 a Mrs. Donoghue was served a bottle of ginger bear at a bar in Paisley Scotland. The bottle contained the well rotted corpse of a snail and Mrs. Donoghue spent several days in hospital. She sued the manufacturer of the bear and the case (which is known in legal legend as the “Paisley Snail” case) was finally decided by the House of Lords in 1932.

Their decision created the modern concept of negligence, by setting out general principles whereby one person would owe another person a duty of care. Before the Paisley Snail decision courts had ruled that there had to be a contractual agreement between the parties in order that a tort action be taken. Since then however courts have generally held for the concept that any one who produces a product owes it to future users to assure that there are no obvious defects or errors and omissions that could negatively impact the user.

While the original concept pertained to goods and manufactured items I’d like to see the concept expanded to thoughts and statements that commentators and writers knowingly issue when they know the statement is untrue. Today if the media lies and demeans me as an individual I can sue for libel, but what if the untruth is a lie directed to the public at large. If the writer (or commentator) knowingly evades the truth, or does not provide an honest and complete version of events should they not be responsible for their product?

Two thousand years ago Marcus Aurelius said “If it’s not right do not do it, If its not true don’t say it”. Those words are just as important today as they were in his day. Perhaps we should apply the concept of Duty of Care to those who try to influence society by distorting or ignoring truth.

Please comment…I’d like to know if my thoughts have merit.