Authored By: Nurdin Hassan
University of Nairobi
- CASE TITLE AND CITATION
Case Name: Donoghue v Stevenson
Citation: [1932] AC 562 (HL)
Full Title: May Donoghue (Appellant) v David Stevenson (Defender)
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Year of Judgment: 1932
This is a landmark case in the law of torts, specifically the tort of negligence that laid the foundation of the modern law of duty of care. This case is also known as the “the snail in the bottle” case.
- COURT NAME AND BENCH
Court: The House of Lords
Bench Composition:
a) Lord Atkin
b) Lord Macmillan
c) Lord Thankerton
d) Lord Tomlin
e) Lord Buckmaster
Bench Type: Appellate Bench (Five Law Lords)
- DATE OF JUDGMENT
Judgment delivered on 26 May 1932.2
- PARTIES INVOLVED
Appellant: May Donoghue
A Scottish woman who consumed a bottle of ginger beer bought by a friend in a café. The beverage allegedly contained the decomposed remains of a snail, which she claimed she felt ill for the sight and complained of abdominal pain.
Respondent: David Stevenson
A manufacturer of ginger beer in Paisley, Scotland, who bottled and distributed the product. He was accused of negligence in the manufacturing process leading to contamination.
- FACTS OF THE CASE
On the evening of 26th August 1928, Ms. Donoghue who lived in Glasgow went to Wellmeadow café in Paisley with a friend. The friend bought and paid for her ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer that was manufactured by David Stevenson, from a local retailer. The ginger beer came in brown opaque glass bottle that prevented visibility of its contents. When the bottle was brought, the café owner (Mr. Minchella) poured a portion into a glass tumbler. Ms. Donoghue consumed part of the drink, and when the remainder was poured over her ice cream, the dead and decomposed remains of a snail allegedly floated out of the bottle.
Ms. Donoghue stated that she was made ill claiming that the she suffered from severe gastro enteritis and mental distress as a result of consuming the ginger beer. She also stated that she received medical treatment from a doctor for three days. Because her friend had purchased the drink, there was no contractual relationship between Donoghue and the manufacturer (Mr. David Stevenson).3 Therefore, she could not sue for breach of contract.
Nevertheless, she filed an action against Stevenson in the Court of Session, Scotland alleging they were negligent in ensuring the product’s safety. The defendant, Stevenson, denied liability, contending that he owed no duty of care to Donoghue as she was not a direct purchaser and that no contractual relationship existed between them. She claimed 500 sterling pound as damages for injuries sustained by drinking the bear.
Therefore, the key question before the court was whether a manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. 6.
6. ISSUES RAISED
The House of Lords had to determine the following legal issues:
Whether a manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the final consumer who did not buy the product directly or in the absence of a direct contractual relationship? B. Whether the absence of contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer bars a claim in negligence? What is the scope of negligence in tort law and under what circumstances can a person be held liable for harm caused to another by their careless acts or omissions? D. Was the harm to Mrs. Donoghue a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the manufacturer’s actions or omissions?4
What are the general principles for establishing a duty of care in negligence?
7. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Arguments by the Appellant (Donoghue)
Existence of a Duty of Care:
The appellant argued that the manufacturer owed a duty to all ultimate consumers to ensure that the product was safe for human consumption and free from any contamination. The sealed and opaque nature of the bottle meant that consumers could not see the contents before use; thus, they relied on the manufacturer’s diligence.
Negligence and Foreseeability:
It was foreseeable that careless manufacturing could cause harm to consumers. Therefore, the manufacturer should have taken reasonable care to prevent contamination. III. Absence of Contract Irrelevant:
Donoghue’s counsel submitted that tortious liability should arise independently of contract. The lack of privity did not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility for foreseeable harm. IV. Public Policy Considerations:
It was in the public interest to hold manufacturers accountable for negligence, as consumers have no means to detect or prevent contamination in sealed goods.
Precedents Relied On:
The appellant relied on George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1, where a husband successfully sued for injuries caused by a defective product purchased for his wife, establishing liability without direct contract.5
Arguments by the Respondent (Stevenson)
No Duty Without Contractual Privity:
Mr. Stevenson contended that he owed no duty to Donoghue, as there was no contractual relationship between them. The sale of the product was between the retailer and Donoghue’s friend, not the manufacturer.
Limited Scope of Negligence:
The defendant argued that negligence claims could not extend to remote parties and that imposing such a duty would create limitless liability for manufacturers.
III. Lack of Direct Evidence:
Stevenson’s counsel claimed that there was insufficient evidence that the alleged snail was present when the bottle left the factory.
Precedents Against Liability:
He relied on earlier cases like Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109,6 where the court had refused to impose liability in the absence of a contractual relationship.
- JUDGMENT
The House of Lords, by a majority of 3:2, ruled in favour of May Donoghue, holding that her statement of claim disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence against the manufacturer. The majority of the Lords such as Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan, held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product if it is reasonably foreseeable that failure to exercise such care could result in injury.
The case was remitted to the Scottish Court of Session for trial, confirming that the action should proceed on the merits. Although the case was settled before trial, the House of Lords’ judgment became the foundation of modern negligence law. Appeal was allowed and Donoghue’s claim was permitted to proceed.
- LEGAL REASONING
a) Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle
The most significant contribution in this case came from Lord Atkin, who formulated the celebrated “neighbour principle”, a moral and legal standard for determining duty of care. He stated:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”7
He proceed to defined “neighbour” as:
“Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
This became the foundational test for establishing duty of care in negligence. It transformed moral obligations into legally enforceable duties where foreseeability and proximity existed.
b) Foreseeability and Proximity
The court reasoned that a manufacturer who produces goods intended for human consumption, especially those in sealed containers, should reasonably foresee that any negligence during production could cause injury to the final consumer. Therefore, there exists a relationship of proximity between manufacturer and consumer.8
c) Absence of Contract Not a Barrier
The judgment expressly broke away from the rigid doctrine of privity of contract, holding that liability in tort can arise independently of contract. The essence was the foreseeability of harm, not contractual connection.
d) Public Policy and Consumer Protection
The court emphasised the importance of protecting consumers in an industrialised society where goods are mass-produced and sealed, leaving consumers unable to inspect them. Recognising a duty of care served public welfare and fairness.
e) Lord Macmillan’s Observations
Lord Macmillan concurred, observing that the categories of negligence are “never closed.” He noted that the law must evolve with societal needs and recognise new duties as relationships and technologies change. The law of negligence, therefore, should remain flexible and responsive.
f) Dissenting Opinions
Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented.9
They argued that expanding liability beyond contractual privity would open the “floodgates” to unlimited claims, creating uncertainty for manufacturers. They preferred to leave such extensions to Parliament rather than judicial innovation.
10.CONCLUSION
- Doctrinal Impact
Donoghue v Stevenson revolutionised the law of torts by formally recognising the general duty of care. It shifted negligence law from being limited to specific relationships (such as employer– employee) to a broad principle of foreseeability and proximity applicable to diverse contexts. This case established that:
a) Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
b) The absence of a contract does not preclude liability in negligence.
c) The neighbour principle serves as the guiding test for duty of care.
Influence on Later Jurisprudence
The decision in Donoghue v Stevenson has influenced many subsequent cases across jurisdictions, including:
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85,10 which applied the same principle to defective undergarments.
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465,11 it extends the duty of care to negligent misstatements.
- Caparo Industries plc v Hickman [1990] 2 AC 605,12 which refined the neighbour principle into the threefold test of foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
III. Modern Application
Today, this case remains the cornerstone of the modern tort of negligence, influencing legal systems worldwide, including Kenya, India, Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth jurisdictions.13 Courts continue to apply and interpret the neighbour principle in determining liability for negligence in diverse fields, such as professional malpractice, product liability, and environmental harm.
Academic Commentary
Legal scholars have hailed Donoghue v Stevenson as one of the most transformative judicial decisions of the twentieth century. It is frequently cited for introducing a universal moral standard into the law of torts, bridging law and ethics. The case exemplifies judicial creativity in adapting legal principles to meet evolving social realities.
As Tony Weir observed, “Donoghue v Stevenson was the case that taught the law to think in terms of duty.”14
Similarly, Lord Denning later remarked that the neighbour principle remains “the fountain of justice in negligence.”
Summary of the Rule Evolved
The rule emerging from Donoghue v Stevenson can be summarized as follows: A manufacturer of goods, who intends that the goods will reach the ultimate consumer in the same form as they left the manufacturer, and who knows that the consumer will not inspect the goods, owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care to ensure that the goods are free from defects likely to cause injury.
Concluding Note
Donoghue v Stevenson transformed negligence from a set of isolated duties into a comprehensive general principle of civil liability. The case not only established the duty of care doctrine but also marked the beginning of modern consumer protection in common law jurisdictions. Its enduring legacy is that it converted a simple complaint about a snail in a bottle into a universal principle of justice — that one must act with reasonable care toward their “neighbour.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109.
George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
Tony Weir, Tort Law (Oxford University Press 2006).
W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2014). 14 Tony Weir, Tort Law (Oxford University Press 2006).
Mark Lunney, Ken Oliphant, and Donal Nolan, Tort Law: Text and Materials (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2017).
1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL), judgment delivered 26 May 1932
3 See generally Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) (distinguishing contractual privity from tortious duty).
4 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL); cf Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (for later development of foreseeability/proximity/fairness).
5 George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1; see also Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
6 Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109; see also Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL).
7 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) (Lord Atkin).
8 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL); see also Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 (application to product defects).
9 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) (dissenting judgments of Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin).
10 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
11 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
12 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
13 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) (influential in Commonwealth jurisprudence).
