Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Introduction

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is one of the most seminal cases in the development of the modern law of negligence. Decided by the House of Lords, this case laid the foundation for the duty of care doctrine by introducing the “neighbour principle,” fundamentally altering the legal landscape of tort law. Prior to this case, legal redress in negligence was often confined by contractual relationships. Donoghue v Stevenson broke through these confines, establishing that a duty of care could exist even in the absence of a contract, provided the relationship between the parties met certain criteria. This summary provides an in-depth exploration of the factual background, legal issues, judicial reasoning, and the enduring influence of the case.

Factual Background

On 26 August 1928, May Donoghue accompanied a friend to the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland. Her friend ordered and paid for a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by David Stevenson. The bottle was made of opaque glass, preventing visibility of its contents. After consuming most of the drink, Donoghue poured the remainder into a glass, discovering the decomposed remains of a snail. Subsequently, she experienced severe shock and gastroenteritis. Donoghue had no contractual relationship with the manufacturer and thus could not sue for breach of contract. Instead, she brought an action in tort, alleging that the manufacturer had failed in his duty to ensure the product’s safety.

Procedural History

The initial action was brought in the Court of Session in Scotland, where the case was challenged on the grounds of relevancy. The defender, Stevenson, argued that he owed no duty of care to Donoghue as there was no contract and no established precedent that extended such a duty to third parties. The Outer House dismissed the claim. The Inner House reversed that decision in part, recognising a possible duty in cases of negligence, but the matter remained unresolved. The case proceeded to the House of Lords on appeal, with five Law Lords hearing the case: Lords Atkin, Thankerton, Macmillan, Buckmaster, and Tomlin.

Legal Issues

The key legal issue was whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the end consumer in the absence of a direct contractual relationship.

The sub-issues included:

• Whether negligence could be actionable independently of contract.
• Whether the manufacturer was liable for damage caused by a defect not discoverable by the consumer.
• Whether the concept of duty of care should be extended to cover relationships beyond established categories such as fraud or inherently dangerous products.

This issue raised broader questions about the scope and boundaries of tort liability, foreseeability, and legal proximity between parties.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Appellant (Donoghue): Donoghue’s counsel argued that Stevenson, as a manufacturer of consumable goods, owed a general duty to ensure his products were safe. They relied on cases such as George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1, which recognised duties to third parties in cases involving dangerous goods. It was contended that the snail was a direct consequence of a manufacturing defect, and the harm suffered was foreseeable. The argument extended to moral grounds, asserting that manufacturers should be held accountable to consumers who rely on the safety of their products.

For the Respondent (Stevenson): Stevenson’s legal team argued there was no precedent for such an expansive duty of care in tort. They cited cases like Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109, which denied recovery to third parties outside of contractual relationships. They also distinguished earlier decisions by noting that liability had only been recognised where products were inherently dangerous, such as poisons or explosives. Ginger beer, by contrast, was not considered dangerous in its nature. It was further claimed that expanding duty of care would open the floodgates to litigation.

Judgment of the House of Lords

In a 3–2 decision, the House of Lords found in favour of Donoghue. The majority opinion, especially that of Lord Atkin, became foundational to modern negligence law.

Lord Atkin’s Majority Opinion: Lord Atkin’s judgment introduced the now-famous “neighbour principle,” stating:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”

He defined a neighbour as:

“Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.”

Lord Atkin reasoned that a manufacturer should foresee that their product may reach the consumer without inspection, creating a duty to ensure its safety. The snail in the bottle illustrated a clear breach of this duty.

Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan: Both agreed with Atkin. Lord Thankerton highlighted that a consumer of sealed products cannot inspect them and must rely on the manufacturer’s diligence. Lord Macmillan acknowledged that the categories of negligence are never closed and that the law must adapt to changing social conditions.

Dissenting Opinions: Lord Buckmaster warned against judicial activism and insisted that existing law did not support such a wide-ranging duty of care. He believed that such developments should be left to Parliament. Lord Tomlin similarly expressed caution, warning that the creation of broad legal duties could lead to indeterminate liability.

Legal Principles Established

The case laid down the following foundational principles:

1. Neighbour Principle: Duty of care arises where one’s actions could foreseeably harm others in close proximity.
2. Foreseeability and Proximity: Liability depends on whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.
3. Absence of Contract Not Fatal: A duty of care can exist even without a contractual relationship.
4. Product Liability: Manufacturers owe a duty to ensure products are free from defects likely to cause harm.

These principles significantly broadened the scope of negligence law and remain central to tortious claims today.

Subsequent Influence and Development

Donoghue v Stevenson has had immense influence both in the UK and globally.

In the UK: The case laid the groundwork for later developments such as:

• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 – established liability for negligent misstatements.
• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 – refined the duty of care into a three-part test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable.
• Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 – expanded liability further before later being partially overturned.

In Commonwealth Jurisdictions:

• Australia: In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85, the Privy Council applied Donoghue, affirming the duty of care in product liability cases.
• Canada: The Supreme Court has consistently applied Donoghue principles, notably in Cooper v Hobart [2001] 3 SCR 537.
• India: Indian tort law, though less developed, also incorporates Donoghue’s reasoning in consumer protection jurisprudence.

Legislative Impact: The principles laid in Donoghue also informed later statutory frameworks. For example:

• The UK’s Consumer Protection Act 1987 introduced strict liability for defective products.
• EU regulations on product liability echo the foreseeability and proximity elements discussed in Donoghue.

Academic Commentary and Critique

Donoghue v Stevenson has been the subject of extensive academic discussion.

Praise:

• Lord Atkin’s judgment is hailed as a moral and legal turning point. Scholars such as Cane and Stapleton commend the judgment for aligning tort law with ethical responsibility.
• It shifted the focus of negligence from rigid categories to functional tests based on social expectations and reasonable conduct.
• The case modernised the law for an industrial and consumer-driven society.

Criticism:

• Some argue the decision was overly judicial, expanding the law beyond the boundaries of precedent.
• Lord Buckmaster’s concern about judicial overreach remains a point of debate in legal theory.
• Later jurisprudence, such as in Caparo, suggests that the neighbour principle alone is insufficient and may lead to unpredictable outcomes.

Modern Assessment: Despite critiques, Donoghue remains a cornerstone of tort law. It is frequently the first case taught in negligence law courses and continues to be cited in courtrooms worldwide. The principle of reasonable foresight underpins many facets of modern liability.

Conclusion

Donoghue v Stevenson is the cornerstone upon which modern negligence law is built. By establishing that a duty of care can exist independently of contractual relationships, it marked a profound shift in legal thinking. Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle has become a guiding doctrine not only in the UK but across the common law world. The decision introduced flexibility, allowing courts to adapt the law of negligence to a wide range of factual scenarios. Though not without its critics, its moral and legal reasoning continues to shape the contours of tort law to this day.

Bibliography

• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)
• Cane P, Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (8th edn, CUP 2013)
• Cooper v Hobart [2001] 3 SCR 537 (SCC)
• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)
• George v Skivington (1869) LR 5 Ex 1
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (PC)
• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL)
• MacQueen H and Thomson J, Contract Law in Scotland (3rd edn, Bloomsbury 2012)
• Stapleton J, ‘Duty of Care Factors: A Selection from the Judicial Menu’ in Cane P and Stapleton J (eds), The Law of Obligations: Essays in Celebration of John Fleming (OUP 1998)
• Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109