Court: House of Lords (Scotland)
Judgment Date: 26 May 1932
Report Citation: [1932] A.C. 562
Introduction: Donoghue v Stevenson
Donoghue v Stevenson is a landmark case in the development of the law of negligence. The case involved a woman named Mrs. Donoghue who consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail.
As a result, she suffered from shock and gastroenteritis. Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for damages. The central question before the court was whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer.
Material Facts in Donoghue v Stevenson
In 1928, Mrs. Donoghue went to a café with a friend and ordered a bottle of ginger beer. The ginger beer was purchased by her friend, but Mrs. Donoghue consumed it.
As she poured the remaining contents of the bottle into her glass, a decomposed snail came out.
Mrs. Donoghue suffered from shock and gastroenteritis as a result. She sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for damages.
Judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson
The case was initially heard in the Court of Session in Scotland and later appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords unanimously held in favor of Mrs. Donoghue, establishing the modern law of negligence.
The court found that Mr. Stevenson, as the manufacturer of the ginger beer, owed a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue as a consumer.
The Reason for the Decision in Donoghue v Stevenson
The court based its decision on the principle of duty of care and the concept of neighbourliness. Lord Atkin, delivering the leading judgment, formulated the famous “neighbour principle” which has become a cornerstone of the law of negligence.
He stated that a person owes a duty of care to their neighbour, who is anyone who might be reasonably affected by their actions.
Lord Atkin further explained that the duty of care arises when there is reasonable foreseeability of harm and a relationship of proximity between the parties. In this case, he held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product.
Lord Atkin emphasised that the duty of care is not limited to contractual relationships but extends to situations where harm is reasonably foreseeable.
The court also rejected the argument that there was no direct contractual relationship between Mrs. Donoghue and Mr. Stevenson, as she did not purchase the ginger beer herself.
Lord Atkin stated that the duty of care arises independently of any contractual relationship and is based on the principle of reasonable foreseeability and proximity.
Conclusion
The judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson established the modern law of negligence and the principle of duty of care. It expanded the scope of liability for negligence beyond contractual relationships and introduced the concept of neighbourliness.
The case set a precedent that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, and this duty extends to the ultimate consumer of a product.
The decision in Donoghue v Stevenson has had a profound impact on tort law and has been widely cited and followed in subsequent negligence cases.
It established the foundation for the three-part test of duty of care, reasonable foreseeability, and proximity, which continues to be applied in determining negligence claims.
The case also emphasized the importance of protecting consumers and holding manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products.
