Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562

Case Title & Citation

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562

House of Lords

Court Name & Bench

Court: House of Lords, United Kingdom

Judges: Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan, Lord Tomlin, Lord Buckmaster

Bench Type: Full Bench

Date of Judgment

26th May 1932

Parties Involved

Appellant (Plaintiff): Mrs. May Donoghue, a woman from Glasgow who consumed a ginger beer bought for her by a friend.

Respondent (Defendant): Mr. David Stevenson, manufacturer of ginger beer sold in opaque bottles.

Facts of the Case

In August 1928, Mrs. Donoghue’s friend purchased ginger beer for her at a café in Paisley, Scotland. The bottle, manufactured by Mr. Stevenson, was made of dark opaque glass. After Mrs. Donoghue had consumed part of the drink, the remainder was poured out and revealed the decomposed body of a snail inside. She subsequently suffered shock and gastroenteritis.
Since she was not the buyer of the product, she could not sue under contract law. Instead, she brought an action against the manufacturer on the ground of negligence.
Donoghue had consumed part of the drink, the remainder was poured out and revealed the decomposed body of a snail inside. She subsequently suffered shock and gastroenteritis.
Since she was not the buyer of the product, she could not sue under contract law. Instead, she brought an action against the manufacturer on the ground of negligence.

Issues Raised

1. Whether or not a manufacturer, owe a duty of care to the final consumer even where no contractual relationship exists?

2. Whether or not liability in negligence arise without the requirement of contractual privity?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Donoghue): Argued that the manufacturer owed her a duty to ensure that the product was safe for consumption. In the case of sealed or opaque containers, the consumer had no reasonable means of inspection and relied entirely on the manufacturer’s care. Stevenson’s negligence directly caused her illness.

Respondent (Stevenson): Contended that there was no contractual link between himself and Donoghue. At common law, a manufacturer was not generally liable to a consumer with whom he had no privity of contract. Hence, no legal duty was owed to her.

Judgment / Final Decision

By a majority, the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. The court ruled that Donoghue had a valid claim in negligence, and the matter was allowed to proceed to trial.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Lord Atkin, delivering the leading opinion, formulated the celebrated “Neighbour Principle”:

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

He defined “neighbour” in law as persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that they ought reasonably to be kept in contemplation.

The decision established that manufacturers of products owe a duty of care to the end-users, regardless of contractual privity. This ruling laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence and remains a cornerstone of tort law.

Conclusion / Obsevation

This case marked a turning point in English law by extending liability beyond the confines of contract and recognizing a general duty of care in tort. Donoghue v. Stevenson is widely regarded as the birth of modern negligence law and continues to influence courts across common law jurisdictions.

Reflection: For me, this case illustrates how the law can adapt to social realities by protecting consumers in situations where strict contract principles fail. It shows the importance of fairness in tort law and demonstrates how a single judgment can shape legal doctrine for generations.