Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords)

1. Case Title & Citation

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords)

2. Court Name & Bench

• Court: House of Lords (UK)
• Bench: Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan, Lord Tomlin, Lord Buckmaster

3. Date of Judgment

26 May 1932

4. Parties Involved

• Appellant: Mrs. Donoghue (Plaintiff) – a consumer who consumed a bottle of ginger beer allegedly containing a decomposed snail.
• Respondent: Mr. Stevenson (Defendant) – the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

5. Facts of the Case

• On 26 August 1928, Mrs. Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend.
• Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her, manufactured by Stevenson.
• The bottle was opaque, preventing inspection of its contents.
• After consuming part of the drink, a decomposed snail was discovered inside the bottle.
• Mrs. Donoghue allegedly suffered shock and gastroenteritis as a result.
• Since she had no contract with Stevenson (the drink was purchased by her friend), she sued under the law of negligence.

6. Issues Raised

• Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer in the absence of a contractual relationship.
• Whether Stevenson was liable in negligence for Donoghue’s illness caused by the contaminated drink.

7. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Donoghue):

• Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers who rely on their products being safe.
• The sealed nature of the bottle meant she could not inspect the contents.
• The injury was foreseeable and preventable.

Respondent (Stevenson):

• No contractual relationship existed between Donoghue and Stevenson, hence no liability.
• To impose liability without contract would excessively broaden the scope of negligence.
• The claim was speculative and lacked evidence of direct causation.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

• The House of Lords (by majority: 3–2) held in favour of Donoghue.
• It was established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the end-consumer, even without a contract.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Lord Atkin delivered the leading judgment and introduced the “neighbour principle”: one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure their “neighbour” (those closely and directly affected by one’s actions).
• The manufacturer was under a duty to ensure that the product, intended for human consumption, was safe.
• Contractual privity was not necessary to establish liability in negligence.
• Lord Buckmaster dissented, warning against opening the “floodgates” of litigation.

10. Conclusion / Observations

• This landmark case established the modern law of negligence.
• It extended liability beyond contractual relationships, forming the foundation of the duty of care principle.
• Critical reflection: While Lord Buckmaster’s concerns about excessive claims were valid, the decision balanced consumer protection with fairness, revolutionising tort law worldwide.