Authored By: Valerie Anene
National University of Maynooth
Case Title & Citation
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, UKHL 100
Court name & Bench
House of Lords
Date of judgment
26 May 1932
Parties involved
Claimant: Mrs Donoghue
Defendant David Stevenson
Facts of the case
On the 26th of august 1928 Ms Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger beer from a café she drank about half of the bottle which was made from a dark opaque glass which made it difficult to look inside when the rest of the bottle was poured into a glass the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her to fall in and develop severe gastro enteritis
Issues raised
The key issue raised to the house of lords was that did Mr Stevenson still owe her a duty of care despite the absence of a contractual relationship and breach of warranty and was Mr Stevenson negligence on his part as the manufacturer had a duty to guarantee the safety of his products for consumers who could use them.
Arguments of the parties
Ms Donoghue argued that Mr Stevenson had a duty of care to ensure the safety of his products for all foreseeable consumers, and the contamination of the ginger beer had illustrated negligence while manufacturing which as a result direct caused her harm
Mr Stevenson responded that a lack of a contractual relationship between Mrs Donoghue and himself discarded any legal obligation he argued that putting such a duty of care would place a huge liability burden on manufacturers. Mr Stevenson wanted the precedent of an early case to be established as in the case Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd 1929 where there is no contract a manufacturer owed no duty of care to a consumer when putting a product out on the market except when the manufacturer was aware that the product was dangerous because of a defect or if the product was in fact dangerous and failed to warn the consumer about this,
Judgement/Final decisions
Mrs Donoughe won the case as the house of lords ruled in her favour with a 3-2 decision, The House of lords established that there does not need to be a direct contractual relationship for a duty to be established. Mr Stevenson as the manufacturer owed a duty of care to consumers who intended to use their product. Lord Atkin established the famous neighbour principle.
Legal reasoning/ Ratio decidendi
Lord atkin developed the neighbour principle forming a key milestone in modern law. The rule said you must love your neighbour. The question arose that who is considered a neighbour and what determines proximity and foreseeability? Lord Atkin said you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour who is regarded as people who are so closely and directly affected by your actions or lack of actions.
Conclusion/ Observations
To finalise Donoghue v Stevenson is a crucial case in tort law and helped emphasis a duty of care in many further cases like Anns v Merton London borough and Caparo industries v Dickman plc where two stage tests was used to establish a duty of care and who was owed that duty. In conclusion this case was crucial in changing how negligence claims were approached and placed great emphasis on proximity, foreseeability and owing a duty when claiming liability this case influenced the practice of tort law worldwide which led to stronger protection for consumers globally by introducing the neighbour principle.
Refrence(S):
Quill, E. (2004) Torts in Ireland. 2nd ed. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Chamberlain, E. (2010) Lord Atkin’s Opinion in Donoghue v Stevenson: Perspectives from Biblical Hermeneutics. Law and humanities. [Online] 4 (1), 91–114.
Hutchinson, A. C. (2014) Some “What If” Thoughts: Notes on Donoghue v Stevenson. Osgoode Hall law journal (1960). [Online] 51 (2), 701–712.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Armitage, C. (2022) Lord Atkin, the snail and the foreigner: loving the neighbour and oppressing the alien. Law and humanities. [Online] 16 (1), 123–144.
