Donoghue v Stevenson

Case Name: Donoghue v Stevenson

Court: House of Lords (now the Supreme Court of the UK)

Date of Decision: 26 May 1932

Citation: [1932] AC 562

Introduction

This landmark case established the modern law of negligence, specifically the principle that a  person owes a duty of care to those who may foreseeably be affected by their actions. It is  widely recognized as the foundation of the “neighbour principle” in tort law.

Facts of the Case

Parties Involved:

• Plaintiff (Appellant): May Donoghue
• Defendant (Respondent): David Stevenson, a manufacturer of ginger beer Nature of the Case: Civil – Tort (Negligence)

Procedural History:

The case originated in the Scottish courts, where it was initially dismissed on the basis that  there was no contractual relationship between the parties. Donoghue appealed to the House of  Lords.

Key Facts:

May Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. Her friend purchased a  bottle of ginger beer, which was manufactured by Stevenson. The opaque bottle was poured  into a glass, and the remains revealed a decomposed snail. Donoghue became ill, allegedly  from drinking the contaminated beverage.

Context:

At the time, there was uncertainty over whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to  consumers when there was no direct contractual relationship (as Donoghue had not purchased  the product herself).

Legal Issues

Primary Issue:

Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product, even in the absence of a contract?

Sub-Issues:

Can a claim in negligence be brought where there is no privity of contract? • What is the scope of duty of care in tort?

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• Stevenson, as a manufacturer, had a duty to ensure that the product was safe for consumption by the public.
• The presence of the snail constituted a breach of this duty, causing her harm. Defendant’s Arguments:
• There was no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson.
• Legal duty should not be extended to persons with whom the manufacturer had no contractual relationship.

Court’s Analysis

The modern law of negligence was established by this seminal case, particularly the idea that  one has a duty of care to those who might reasonably be impacted by one’s actions. It is  commonly acknowledged as the cornerstone of tort law’s “neighbour principle. “The case was  first dismissed in the Scottish courts because the parties did not have a contractual  relationship. Donoghue made a House of Lords appeal. A duty of care could exist even in the  absence of a contract, according to the House of Lords’ majority, which included Lords  Atkin, Thankerton, and Macmillan. The “neighbour principle,” which Lord Atkin famously  developed, states that one must exercise reasonable caution to refrain from actions or  inactions that could be reasonably predicted to cause harm to one’s “neighbour.” According to  his definition, a neighbour is someone who is so directly and intimately impacted by an  action that they should be considered.

The Court examined the nature of contemporary business, paying special attention to how  manufacturers provide goods to the general public. It was decided that this kind of  relationship establishes an obligation to prevent careless end-user harm.

Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissented, arguing that recognizing such a duty without  legislative authority would be a dangerous extension of legal responsibility.

Decision (Ruling/Outcome)

Held: The House of Lords ruled in favor of Donoghue, allowing her to proceed with her  claim.

Outcome: The court held that Stevenson owed a duty of care to Donoghue, and his failure to  ensure the safety of the product constituted a breach of that duty, making the case actionable  in tort.

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Rule Established)

A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its product, regardless of the  presence or absence of a direct contract, if it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to take  care could cause harm.

Obiter Dicta (if applicable)

Lord Atkin’s broader discussion of moral and legal responsibility influenced later  developments in negligence law, particularly in establishing the general principle of  foreseeability as a key factor in duty of care.

Significance of the Case

This case established the basis for modern law of negligence. Lord Atkin’s “neighbour  principle” provided the basis for many of the decisions that followed and contributed to the  development of the concept of duty of care in a number of common law jurisdictions. This  was a significant shift away from strict contractual constraints and extended tort liability to  cover scenarios in which harm was foreseeable, even where there were no contractual  obligations. 

Conclusion

Donoghue v Stevenson is a seminal case that reshaped the law of negligence by affirming  that individuals and companies must take reasonable care to avoid acts that could foreseeably  harm others. It introduced a general duty of care based on proximity and foreseeability, which  has since become central to tort law analysis.

Reference(S):

• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
• Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort
• Street on Torts
• Beever, “Rediscovering the Law of Negligence” (2007)