Authored By: Rasika Umesh Mankapure
Swansea University , United Kingdom
Case Name: Donoghue v Stevenson
Court: House of Lords (now the Supreme Court of the UK)
Date of Decision: 26 May 1932
Citation: [1932] AC 562
Introduction
This landmark case established the modern law of negligence, specifically the principle that a person owes a duty of care to those who may foreseeably be affected by their actions. It is widely recognized as the foundation of the “neighbour principle” in tort law.
Facts of the Case
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiff (Appellant): May Donoghue
- Defendant (Respondent): David Stevenson, a manufacturer of ginger beer Nature of the Case: Civil – Tort (Negligence)
Procedural History:
The case originated in the Scottish courts, where it was initially dismissed on the basis that there was no contractual relationship between the parties. Donoghue appealed to the House of Lords.
Key Facts:
May Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer, which was manufactured by Stevenson. The opaque bottle was poured into a glass, and the remains revealed a decomposed snail. Donoghue became ill, allegedly from drinking the contaminated beverage.
Context:
At the time, there was uncertainty over whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to consumers when there was no direct contractual relationship (as Donoghue had not purchased the product herself).
Legal Issues
Primary Issue:
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product, even in the absence of a contract?
Sub-Issues:
Can a claim in negligence be brought where there is no privity of contract? • What is the scope of duty of care in tort?
Arguments
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
- Stevenson, as a manufacturer, had a duty to ensure that the product was safe for consumption by the public.
- The presence of the snail constituted a breach of this duty, causing her harm. Defendant’s Arguments:
- There was no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson.
- Legal duty should not be extended to persons with whom the manufacturer had no contractual relationship.
Court’s Analysis
The modern law of negligence was established by this seminal case, particularly the idea that one has a duty of care to those who might reasonably be impacted by one’s actions. It is commonly acknowledged as the cornerstone of tort law’s “neighbour principle. “The case was first dismissed in the Scottish courts because the parties did not have a contractual relationship. Donoghue made a House of Lords appeal. A duty of care could exist even in the absence of a contract, according to the House of Lords’ majority, which included Lords Atkin, Thankerton, and Macmillan. The “neighbour principle,” which Lord Atkin famously developed, states that one must exercise reasonable caution to refrain from actions or inactions that could be reasonably predicted to cause harm to one’s “neighbour.” According to his definition, a neighbour is someone who is so directly and intimately impacted by an action that they should be considered.
The Court examined the nature of contemporary business, paying special attention to how manufacturers provide goods to the general public. It was decided that this kind of relationship establishes an obligation to prevent careless end-user harm.
Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissented, arguing that recognizing such a duty without legislative authority would be a dangerous extension of legal responsibility.
Decision (Ruling/Outcome)
Held: The House of Lords ruled in favor of Donoghue, allowing her to proceed with her claim.
Outcome: The court held that Stevenson owed a duty of care to Donoghue, and his failure to ensure the safety of the product constituted a breach of that duty, making the case actionable in tort.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Rule Established)
A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its product, regardless of the presence or absence of a direct contract, if it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to take care could cause harm.
Obiter Dicta (if applicable)
Lord Atkin’s broader discussion of moral and legal responsibility influenced later developments in negligence law, particularly in establishing the general principle of foreseeability as a key factor in duty of care.
Significance of the Case
This case established the basis for modern law of negligence. Lord Atkin’s “neighbour principle” provided the basis for many of the decisions that followed and contributed to the development of the concept of duty of care in a number of common law jurisdictions. This was a significant shift away from strict contractual constraints and extended tort liability to cover scenarios in which harm was foreseeable, even where there were no contractual obligations.
Conclusion
Donoghue v Stevenson is a seminal case that reshaped the law of negligence by affirming that individuals and companies must take reasonable care to avoid acts that could foreseeably harm others. It introduced a general duty of care based on proximity and foreseeability, which has since become central to tort law analysis.
Reference(S):
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
- Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort
- Street on Torts
- Beever, “Rediscovering the Law of Negligence” (2007)