Authored By: Julia Skripnichenko
Case Title & Citation
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Court Name & Bench
The court decided by the House of Lords, with the bench compromising Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillian, Lord Thankerton, Lord Tomlin, and Lord Buckmaster.
Date of Judgement
The judgement was delivered on 26 May 1932.
Parties Involved
Appellant: Mrs. May Donoghue:
A Scottish consumer who became ill after drinking contaminated ginger beer.
Respondent: Mr. David Stevenson:
The manufacturer of the ginger beer accused of negligence.
Facts of the case
On 26 August 1928, the appellant, Mrs. May Donoghue, attended a café in Paisley, Scotland, accompanied. Her friend purchased for her a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the respondent, Mr. David Stevenson. The bottle was made of opaque glass, preventing any inspection of its contents prior to consumption. After drinking part of the ginger beer, Mrs. Donoghue discovered that the bottle contained the remains of a decomposed snail.
Mrs. Donoghue had a shock and gastroenteritis, which she clearly linked to the contaminated drink. Importantly, Mrs. Donoghue’s friend had bought the ginger beer on her behalf rather than herself. This absence of contractual privity meant that she had no direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer. Her claim was innovative since, at the time, responsibility was often limited to contractual obligations under the prevailing law.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Donoghue initiated proceedings against Mr. Stevenson, alleging negligence in the preparation and bottling of the drink. Therefore, the case brought up a basic legal question: whether a manufacturer could be held liable in negligence to a consumer with whom no contract existed. Its factual simplicity and dramatic circumstances made it the perfect vehicle for reshaping negligence law.
Issues Raised
The case presented a set of fundamental legal issues that challenged the prevailing doctrine of the time. The most important question was whether, even in the absence of a contractual connection, a manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. The idea of privity of contract at the time meant that only those directly bound by a contract could sue for breach, and culpability in negligence was often restricted to certain groups. Mrs. Donoghue’s claim therefore raised the issue of whether negligence law could extend beyond contractual boundaries to protect consumers who had no direct relationship with the manufacturer.
A second issue concerned the scope of negligence itself. The court was asked to decide whether negligence should be recognised as a general principle of liability, applicable whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, or whether it should remain restricted to established categories such as dangerous goods or inherently hazardous activities.
Lastly, the case brought up a more general policy question: should the law adapt to the realities of modern industrial society, where consumers routinely rely on manufactures for the safety of products they cannot inspect? These issues collectively framed the debate that led to the recognition of general duty of care in negligence in law.
Holding
The legal holding of the House of lords, reached by the majority, established the foundational principle of modern product liability in negligence, ruling that: “By Scots and English law alike the manufacturer of an article of food, medicine or the like, sold by him to a distributor in circumstances which prevent the distributor of the ultimate purchaser or consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health”. Applying this principle, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Second Division of the Court of Session and restored the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, holding that the appellant – who alleged she suffered injury after consuming ginger-beer, had disclosed a relevant cause of action against the manufacturer. This duty was recognised because the manufacturer intended the product to reach the ultimate consumer “in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination”, this created a relationship of proximity that imposed a duty of care independent of any contract of sale.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi lies in the recognition that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. The House of Lords held that where a manufacturer sells “an article of food, medicine or the like” in circumstances that prevent the distributor or consumer from discovering defects by inspection, the manufacturer is under a legal duty “to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health”. This principle was applied to the facts of the case, where the appellant consumed ginger beer from an opaque, sealed bottle containing a decomposed snail. As the product was intended to reach the consumer exactly as it left the manufacturer, with “no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination”, the relationship between manufacturer and consumer was deemed sufficiently proximate to impose liability.
Lord Atkin’s articulation of the Neighbour Principle provided the broader foundation for this duty, stating that one must “take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. In law, neighbours are those “closely and directly affected” by one’s actions. Thus, the consumer was considered the manufactures neighbour, as injury from negligence was reasonably foreseeable. The majority judgment reversed the lower court and affirmed that Donoghue’s averments disclosed a relevant cause of action. The ratio therefore established a general duty of care in negligence, transforming tort law by extending liability beyond contractual boundaries and ensuring that consumers had a remedy against negligent manufactures.
Obiter Dicta
The Obiter Dicta in this case played a crucial role in shaping the broader philosophical foundation of negligence law, even though they were not strictly necessary for resolving the immediate dispute about manufacturer liability. Lord Atkin provided the most famous dictum in the form of the ‘Neighbour principle’, arguing that the legal conception of duty of care is based on the moral rule to love your neighbour, which means “you must not injure your neighbour”. Furthermore, Lord Macmillan contributed key dicta by asserting that the “categories of negligence are never closed” , suggesting that legal responsibility must “develop in adaption to alerting social conditions and standards”. These broad statements established a general, unifying framework for duty of care – applying the principles of foreseeability and proximity. These statements, while not part of the binding ratio, became highly persuasive authority for recognising new duties in future negligence claims.
Significance
The significance of the case is profound, as it fundamentally reshaped the law of negligence by establishing both a specific rule for manufacturer liability and a broad guiding principle for determining duty of care in tort law. Most directly, the case created a legal duty owned by manufacturer to the ultimate consumer of their products, even in the absence of contractual privity, holding that a manufacturer of food, medicine, or similar goods is under a “legal duty to ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health” when the product is sold in circumstances that prevent intermediate inspection. This ruling is overturned restrictive Scottish authority such as Mullen v Barr & Co (1929), and remedied word Lord Atkin described as a “grave defect in the law”, by proving a remedy for an obvious social wrong. The duty was grounded in the fact that the opaque, sealed bottle precluded inspection, meaning the manufacturers control remained effective until the consumer opened it. Beyond this specific rule, the cases enduring significance lies in Lord Atkins formulation of the neighbour principle which unified fragmented categories of duty into a general test based on foreseeability and proximity, and Load Macmillan’s dictum that “the categories are never closed”, ensuring the law could adapt to changing social conditions. By overcoming restrictive precedents such as Winterbottom v Wright (1842), the majority judgement marks a constitutional milestone in the development of common law negligence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Donoghue v Stevenson stands as a landmark decision that transformed the landscape of negligence law and continues to resonate across common law jurisdictions. The case not only resolved the immediate dispute concerning manufacturer liability but also articulated enduring principles that have guided the development of tort law for nearly a century. By recognising that a manufacturer owns of duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even in absent contractual privity, the House of laws remedied a serious gap in the law and ensured that individuals harmed by defective products could seek redress. More importantly, Lord Atkin’s formulation of the neighbour principle provided a general test for duty of care, based on foreseeability and proximity, which has since been applied in countless contexts beyond product liability. Lord Macmillan’s observation that the categories of negligence are never closed reinforce the adaptability of the common law, allowing negligence to evolve with changing social conditions. Although dissenting voices warned against expanding liability too far, the majority judgement has been vindicated by its enduring influence. The case thus represents both a doctrinal shift and a constitutional milestone, embodying the law’s capacity to balance principle, justice, and social need in the protection of individuals.
Bibliography:
Table of Cases:
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 582.
- Mullen v Barr & Co [1929] SC 461 (IH).
- Winterbottom v Wright [1842] 10 M&W 109, 152 ER 402.
