Authored By: Gold Mmasinachi Nwanganga
University of Abuja, Nigeria
Case Name: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON
(1932) AC 562
HOUSE OF LORDS, UNITED KINGDOM
LORD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD TOMLIN, and LORD BUCKMASTER
26 MAY 1932.
MAY DONOGHUE (PETITIONER/APPELLANT)
A consumer who became ill after drinking ginger beer containing a decomposed snail.
DAVID STEVENSON (RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT) The manufacturer of the ginger beer.
Donoghue’s friend bought her ginger beer in an opaque bottle from a café in Paisley, Scotland. After consuming part of it, Donoghue discovered the remains of a decomposed snail in the bottle. She fell ill with gastroenteritis and claimed damages from Stevenson, the manufacturer. Donoghue had no contract with Stevenson since she didn’t buy the drink herself.
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to a consumer, even when no contract exists between them?
DONOGHUE (Appellant), argued that the manufacturer owed her a duty of care to ensure the product was safe for consumption. She relied on earlier negligence cases such as Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503, where the court hinted at a general duty of care in certain circumstances and emphasized the foreseeability of harm to consumers if manufacturers failed to take reasonable care.
STEVENSON (Respondent), argued that no contractual relationship existed; therefore, no liability could arise. He relied on earlier cases like Winterbottom v. Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109, which limited liability to parties in direct contractual relationships. He maintained that under common law at the time, duties of care did not extend to ultimate consumers without a contract.
The House of Lords ruled in favor of Donoghue, holding that Stevenson owed her a duty of care. Lord Atkin introduced the “neighbour principle”, stating that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure their neighbour. “Neighbours” in law are persons closely and directly affected by one’s actions, and who should reasonably be in contemplation when acting. This principle established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate consumers.
The case established the modern law of negligence. It is used as a reference in cases surrounding negligence and duty of care. It expanded liability beyond contractual privity. It remains a cornerstone of tort law, and was later refined in cases like Caparo v. Dickman (1990).
