Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Case Citation and Court

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, House of Lords

Background / Facts of the Case

On 26 August 1928, May Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by David Stevenson. The ginger beer came in a dark opaque glass bottle, making it impossible to see the contents inside. After Donoghue had consumed some of the drink, her friend poured the remaining contents into a glass, at which point the decomposed remains of a snail emerged. Donoghue claimed that this caused her physical illness, specifically gastroenteritis, and emotional distress.

As Donoghue had not herself purchased the drink, she lacked a contractual relationship with the café owner or the manufacturer. Therefore, she could not pursue a claim under contract law. Instead, she brought an action in tort, alleging that the manufacturer had been negligent in failing to ensure the product’s safety.

At the time, English law only imposed a duty of care in certain limited categories, such as dangerous goods or fraud. There was no general principle that a manufacturer owed a duty to the ultimate consumer in the absence of a contract. This case thus presented a significant opportunity to reconsider the foundations of tort liability.

Procedural History

Donoghue initially filed her claim in the Court of Session in Scotland. Stevenson’s legal team applied to have the claim dismissed on the grounds that it did not disclose a legally recognised cause of action. The lower court agreed, finding that no duty of care existed under current law. Donoghue appealed, and the matter ultimately reached the House of Lords, which was then the UK’s highest appellate court.

Issues Before the Court

a) Can the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer with whom it has no direct contractual relationship?

b) Does the absence of privity of contract bar the claimant from seeking a remedy in negligence?

c) What is the scope and foundation of the duty of care in tort law?

Arguments of the Parties

For Donoghue (Appellant):

• Argued that Stevenson, as a manufacturer, owed a duty of care to the consumer to ensure the product was free from harmful defects.
• Emphasised that the product was intended to be consumed as sold, with no reasonable opportunity for intermediate inspection.
• Invoked moral and practical concerns about consumer protection in a modern industrial society.

For Stevenson (Respondent):

• Contended that no legal duty could arise in the absence of a contractual relationship.
• Cited Winterbottom v Wright (1842) as authority for the proposition that liability did not extend beyond contractual bounds.
• Claimed ginger beer was not an inherently dangerous product and therefore did not fall within recognised exceptions.

Judgement

The House of Lords, in a 3–2 majority decision, overturned the lower court’s ruling and allowed Donoghue’s claim to proceed. The majority, comprising Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan, held that Stevenson owed Donoghue a duty of care.

Lord Atkin’s “Neighbour Principle”

Lord Atkin delivered the most influential opinion. He rejected the narrow confines of contract law and proposed a broader basis for legal responsibility. He stated:

“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” in law as:

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

This test introduced two crucial concepts to negligence law: foreseeability and proximity. Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan Both concurred, focusing on the facts of the case. They agreed that the manufacturer had exclusive control over the production process and that the product was intended to be consumed as-is, making the consumer vulnerable to any negligence.

Dissenting Opinions

Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissented. Buckmaster warned against judicial law-making, arguing that to impose a general duty of care would expand liability unpredictably and should be left to Parliament. He cited precedent to show that English law did not recognise such a duty.

Legal Issues

The central legal issues in the case were:

1. Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to an ultimate consumer who has no contractual relationship with them.
2. Whether the foreseeability of harm alone is sufficient to establish liability in negligence.
3. Whether the court should extend liability in tort beyond previously recognised exceptions involving inherently dangerous products.

Legal Principles Established

1. General Duty of Care: The case marked the birth of a general principle that individuals owe a duty to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others.
2. The Neighbour Principle: This remains a guiding moral and legal doctrine in tort law.
3. Manufacturer Liability: Manufacturers owe a duty to the ultimate consumer to ensure product safety, particularly where products are sold in a sealed form and used without further inspection.

Impact on Tort Law

Donoghue v Stevenson reshaped the law of negligence and laid the foundation for the modern tort of personal injury. Its effects reverberate through numerous subsequent cases, academic discourse, and legal systems worldwide.

Subsequent Case Law

• Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728: Built on Lord Atkin’s principle, creating a two-stage test for duty of care.
• Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: Refined the test into a tripartite structure: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
• Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465: Extended the duty of care into cases of pure economic loss via negligent misstatement.
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85: Applied Donoghue to clothing manufacturers after a consumer suffered dermatitis from contaminated undergarments.

Academic and Critical Perspectives

Lord Atkin’s reasoning has been praised for aligning legal doctrine with moral intuitions. His neighbour principle is often viewed as a moral compass that introduced a humane and socially responsible dimension into common law reasoning.

Tony Weir described the judgment as one of the greatest advances in legal thought, highlighting its doctrinal elegance. Glanville Williams, however, argued that Lord Atkin’s reliance on “foreseeability” was too vague and could lead to judicial overreach.

Some critical legal scholars, including feminist theorists, argue that the neighbour principle privileges a rational, individualistic view of legal subjects. It fails, they say, to acknowledge power imbalances and structural inequalities that affect who is considered “closely affected” by a defendant’s conduct.

International Influence

The influence of Donoghue v Stevenson has extended well beyond the UK. It has been adopted or cited with approval in many common law jurisdictions:

• Australia: In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936], the principles were explicitly adopted.
• Canada: The Supreme Court relies on Donoghue in developing negligence law, such as in Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd [2008].
• India: Courts have applied Donoghue in consumer protection and tort cases.
• United States: While the US follows its own frameworks like the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Donoghue is often cited in academic and comparative contexts.

Conclusion

Donoghue v Stevenson stands as a turning point in the history of English law. By recognising a general duty of care based on foreseeability and proximity, it revolutionised tort law and enabled claims in negligence independent of contractual relationships. Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle introduced a lasting moral dimension to legal duty and has had widespread influence on subsequent jurisprudence and legal theory.

This case remains central to legal education and practice, not only for its doctrinal innovation but also for its enduring legacy in aligning the law with principles of social responsibility, fairness, and foreseeability. Through Donoghue v Stevenson, tort law evolved to reflect the realities of a complex, industrial society, laying the groundwork for modern consumer protection and personal injury litigation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)
2. Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728
3. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
4. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 5. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
5. Jonathan Morgan, ‘The Duty of Care After Donoghue v Stevenson’ (2012) 71 CLJ 31
6. Tony Weir, Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2006) 8. Glanville Williams, ‘The Concept of Legal Duty’ (1957) 10 MLR 137