DONOGHUE V STEVENSON

COURT NAME: HOUSE OF LORDS APPELLATE COURT 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 26 May 1932. 

CITATION: [1932] A.C. 562 

JUDGEMENT BY: LORD ATKIN 

INTRODUCTION 

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is a landmark decision in tort law that explored the concept of negligence and the scope of duty of care. The House of Lords, in deciding the case, introduced the “neighbor principle,” articulated by Lord Atkin. This principle established that a person owes a duty of care to their “neighbors”—meaning those who are closely and directly affected by their actions and whom they ought reasonably to have in contemplation. This case laid the foundation of modern negligence law by affirming that liability in negligence is not confined to contractual relationships but extends wherever harm is reasonably foreseeable. 

PARTIES INVOLVED 

Appellant: May Donoghue (also known as May M’Alister or McAllister, her married name at the time). 

Respondent: David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

On 26 August 1928 Mrs. May Donoghue (then M’Alister) was given a bottle of ginger beer at a Paisley café. The opaque bottle, sealed with a metal cap, was manufactured by David Stevenson. Donoghue’s friend poured some ginger beer over her ice cream; after Donoghue consumed part, the friend poured the remainder into the tumbler and a decomposed snail floated out. Donoghue alleged this shocked and made her ill with severe gastroenteritis. She sued Stevenson (the manufacturer) in the Scottish Court of Session on 9 April 1929, claiming £500 in damages for the shock and illness. The case reached the House of Lords as an appeal from the Inner House of the Court of Session. 

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether under the common law of both Scotland and England, a manufacturer who sells food or drink product in a sealed container owes a duty of care in tort to the ultimate consumer who is not a party to any contract of sale. 
2. If such a duty exists, whether the appellant’s averments of negligent manufacturer are relevant and sufficient to warrant a proof of facts. 

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

Appellant (Donoghue) 

The sealed opaque bottle excluded any opportunity for the retailer or consumer to inspect the contents; therefore, the manufacturer stood in a direct relationship to the consumer and owed a duty of care 

The presence of a decomposed snail demonstrated a lack of reasonable care in manufacturing process, infringing that duty. 

Existing authority, particularly George v Skivington and the dicta of Lord Atkin in Heaven v Pender, supported liability where a product, if negligently prepared, foreseeably endangered users. 

Respondent (Stevenson) 

At common law no duty of care is owed by a manufacturer to a consumer with whom he has no contractual relationship as affirmed in Winterbottom v Wright and similar decisions. 

Duties to third parties arises only in narrow ‘exceptions’ (e.g. inherently dangerous goods or known defects). Ginger beer is not inherently dangerous and no knowledge of danger was alleged.

Adopting the Appellants theory would expose manufacturers to unlimited liability and ‘might be called on to meet claims…. Which they could not possibly investigate or answer. 

CASES RELIED ON 

The House of Lords and counsel reviewed numerous precedents. Among the authorities discussed or cited were: 

Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503 – “Neighbor principle” duty arises where acts may foreseeably injure another closely and directly affected. 

George v Skivington (1869) L.R. 5 Ex. 1 – an earlier “snail in a bottle” case (ginger beer) recognizing manufacturer liability. 

Mullen v Barr & Co. (1929 S.C. 461) – a Scottish case with very similar facts (a decomposed mouse in ginger beer) which the Court below had followed. 

Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M. & W. 109 – held a manufacturer was not liable to a non-contracting third party. 

Langridge v Levy (1837) 2 M. & W. 519 – involved a gun misrepresented as safe (with fraud). 

Longmeid v Holliday (1851) 6 Ex. 761 – defective lamp case emphasizing no duty absent contract. 

Dixon v Bell (1816) 5 M. & S. 198;

Dominion Natural Gas Co. v Collins & Perkins [1909] AC 640;

Blacker v Lake & Elliott (1912) 106 L.T. 533;

Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] A.C. 956 – other cases discussing manufacturer liability. 

White v Steadman [1895] 2 Ch. 205 and

Cavalier v Pope [1906] A.C. 428 – also considered in argument. 

These and other precedents formed the background; no single case resolved the exact issue, but together they delineated the scope of any duty of care. 

FINAL DECISION

The final decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was that the House of Lords, by a majority of 3–2, allowed Mrs. Donoghue’s appeal. 

The Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their products, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. 

The case was remitted back to the Scottish Court of Session for proof of negligence— meaning Donoghue was given the right to proceed with her claim against Stevenson, though she still had to prove that Stevenson had been negligent in allowing the snail into the bottle. 

LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI 

The majority of the House (Lord Atkin, with Lord Thankerton agreeing) held that Donoghue’s pleadings, if proved, disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence. Lord Atkin’s judgment established the ratio: he emphasized that the law imposes a general duty not to cause foreseeable harm to one’s “neighbor”. By marketing sealed consumable goods, a manufacturer “places himself in a relationship with all the potential consumers” and thus must take care not to “convert [a product] … as wholesome and innocent into an article which is dangerous” through his negligence. Foreseeability was key – Stevenson knew his product would be consumed by the public, so he ought to have foreseen that carelessness (e.g. allowing a snail into the bottle) could injure someone. Lord Atkin rejected the contention that lack of privity insulated manufacturers; he reasoned that without a duty of care; injured consumers would have no remedy at all – an outcome “neither in the law of England nor … of Scotland” could be right. 

In concrete terms, the Lords decided that Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty to use reasonable care in his manufacturing and bottling process, even though she was not his direct purchaser. Having established that a duty existed, the House noted that negligence (if proved at trial) would breach that duty. Finally, by majority the House allowed Donoghue’s appeal: it reversed the Second Division’s dismissal and restored the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, remitting the case for proof of. In effect, the Court held that if Donoghue could prove the bottle was contaminated due to Stevenson’s lack of care, Stevenson would be liable. (Lords Tomlin and Macmillan dissented on the outcome: each would have applied the older rule against recovery.

PRINCIPLE 

Donoghue v Stevenson enunciated the modern negligence principle that a person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to injure “neighbors” – defined as those closely and directly affected by one’s conduct. Crucially, it established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products even in the absence of any contract. In Lord Atkin’s words, by placing a sealed bottle of ginger beer on the market Stevenson assumed a “relationship with all the potential consumers” and thus a duty not to allow harmful defects. This case is thus widely cited as the origin of the general duty of care in tort – a duty “separate and general” from contract 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE 

Donoghue v Stevenson is a landmark decision of the House of Lords and “laid the foundation for the modern law of negligence” worldwide. It transformed tort law by replacing the restrictive privity principle with a general duty-of-care test. Lord Atkin’s neighbor principle became the touchstone for negligence cases, opening the door for claims by injured third parties (product liability, personal injuries, etc.). The case is foundational in that it “established the duty of care as a separate and general principle”. Its ripples are felt in virtually every common-law jurisdiction: subsequent cases (and even statutes) often begin by asking whether a relationship of proximity or foreseeability, as defined in Donoghue, imposes a duty of care. 

CONCLUSION 

The decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 represents a watershed moment in the development of the common law. By recognizing a general duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers, the House of Lords departed from the restrictive doctrine of privity and established a principle that has since underpinned negligence law globally. The case continues to be the touchstone for duty-of-care discussions and illustrates how judicial reasoning can adapt the law to meet the demands of justice and social policy. 

REFERENCE(S: (OSCOLA) 

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL). 

Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503.

George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1. 

Mullen v Barr & Co 1929 SC 461. 

Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109, 152 ER 402. Langridge v Levy (1837) 2 M & W 519, 150 ER 863. 

Longmeid v Holliday (1851) 6 Ex 761, 155 ER 752. 

Dominion Natural Gas Co v Collins & Perkins [1909] AC 640 (PC). Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956 (HL). 

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b3e60d03e5f6b82ba37