Moreover, the law is rightly allergic to the imposition of a duty to warn one’s reasonably intelligent “neighbour” (see Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 CanLII 536 (FOREP), [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.)) against dangers that are self-evident. There is no evidence that the appellant was anything other than reasonably intelligent, and the slight risk posed by placing a hand between the tongue-guides was obvious.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.