The mouse and the snail: reappraising the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson part I - a case worth celebrating?

First in a four-part series. Questions the extent to which Scots lawyers should 'revel' in the fame of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31 in light of the fact that Scotland is not itself a Common law jurisdiction. Discusses the difficulties with the idea - taken as an article of faith in the case itself - that 'there [was] no speciality of Scots law involved and that the case [could] safely be decided on principles common to both systems [i.e., Scots and English law]' and considers the dangers that adopting the 'incremental approach' favoured in English jurisprudence would have in respect of the 'intellectual superstructure' of Scots delict.