M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562

Lords present

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan

May 26, 1932

Parties involved

Mrs. Mary M’Alister or Donoghue, Pursuer (Appellant)– Morton, K.C.–Milligan.
David Stevenson, Defender (Respondent).– Sol.-Gen. Normand–Clyde–T. Elder Jones.

Facts of the Case

On August 26, 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from Wellmeadow Café in Paisley. She consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler. At this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and severe gastro-enteritis.

Mrs. Donoghue was not able to claim through breach of warranty of a contract: she was not privy to any contract. Therefore, she issued proceedings against Stevenson, the manufacturer, which snaked its way up to the House of Lords. [1]

Legal Issues Raised

1. The central issue in this case was whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer despite the absence of a direct contractual relationship.
2. Whether the presence of a decomposed snail in the bottle constituted negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
3. Whether a manufacturer has a responsibility to ensure that its products do not cause harm to consumers.
4. The case explored the extent to which one party must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably cause harm to another party. [2]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Mrs. Donoghue’s legal team argued that Stevenson, as the manufacturer of the ginger beer, owed a duty of care to her as a consumer of the product. They presented several key points:

1. Duty of Care in Manufacturing: The appellants argued that manufacturers who sell food and drink products for public consumption must take care to ensure that their products are free from harmful defects. Mrs. Donoghue had no opportunity to inspect the contents of the bottle as it was opaque, and the responsibility to ensure the safety of the product fell on the manufacturer.
2. Res Ipsa Loquitur: The appellants invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means “the thing speaks for itself.” The fact that a decomposed snail was found in the ginger beer suggested that the product was manufactured negligently, as no reasonable manufacturer would allow such contamination to occur.
3. Legal Precedents: The appellants relied on several legal precedents to support their claim, including:

• George v. Skivington(1869), which established that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to users of their products even in the absence of a contract.
• Heaven v. Pender(1883), where the court held that those who manufacture products that may cause harm if defective owe a duty of care to those who may be affected.
• Dominion Natural Gas v. Collins & Perkins(1909), which stated that manufacturers of dangerous goods owed a duty to take precautions to prevent harm. [3]
•  

Respondent’s Arguments

David Stevenson & Co. denied any negligence and argued that Mrs. Donoghue’s claim was without merit for several reasons:

1. Lack of Privity of Contract: The primary defence was that there was no contractual relationship between Mrs. Donoghue and the manufacturer. Since her friend had purchased the bottle of ginger beer, Stevenson argued that they owed no duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue under the existing legal framework.
2. Exaggeration of Injury: The defence also argued that Mrs. Donoghue’s illness was not necessarily caused by the ginger beer and may have been due to other factors unrelated to the drink.
3. Previous Legal Precedents: The defence cited several cases where claims for negligence had been dismissed due to the absence of a contractual relationship, including:
   
   
   • Mullen v. AG Barr & Co.(1929), where a similar claim involving a foreign object in a food product had been dismissed.
   • Winterbottom v. Wright(1842), which reinforced the principle that manufacturers were not liable to third parties with whom they had no direct contract.
   • Blacker v. Lake & Elliot(1912), which held that a manufacturer’s breach of contract did not create a cause of action for third parties. [3]

Judgement/ Final Decision

The House of Lords found for Mrs Donoghue with the leading judgment delivered by Lord Atkin in a 3-2 majority with Buckmaster L and Tomlin L dissenting. The ratio decidendi of the case is not straightforward. Indeed, it could be interpreted as narrow as to establish a duty not to sell opaque bottles of ginger-beer, containing the decomposed remains of a dead snail, to Scottish widows.

Read more broadly, the decision has several components: first, negligence is distinct and separate in tort; second, there does not need to be a contractual relationship for a duty to be established; third, manufacturers owe a duty to the consumers who they intend to use their product. [1]

Ratio Decidendi

The suggested ratio decidendi (Latin: the reason for the decision) of the case has varied from the narrowest, jokingly suggested by Julius Stone, that there was merely a duty “not to sell opaque bottles of beverage containing dead snails to Scots widows”, to the widest, suggested by Lord Normand, who had been one of Stevenson’s counsel, that Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle was the ratio. Although the neighbour principle was a critical part of Lord Atkin’s reasoning, and was therefore part of the ratio of his judgment, neither of the other judges in the majority expressly endorsed the principle. Robert Heuston therefore suggests that case only supports the claims there can be duties in tort even if there is a contract; that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their goods; and possibly that negligence is a separate tort. [4]

The Neighbour Principle

the primary outcome of Donoghue, and what it is best known for, is the further development of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin, who said: The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. [1]

Conclusion

On 26 May 1932, the House of Lords decided a case that has been defined not only as “revolutionary” and “[the] single most important decision in the history of the law of torts, but even as the “most important decision in all the common law”.  Of course, one refers to the so called “Snail Case” or “Snail in the Ginger Beer Case”, i.e., to Donoghue v. Stevenson which has not only influenced English product liability law but (above all) the English law of torts. Consequently, nowadays the starting point in a tort of negligence case is no longer constituted by precedents, but by Donoghue v. Stevenson.” Lord Reid pointed this out very clearly, when he stated that “[Donoghue v. Stevenson] ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.” [5]

Therefore, these clearly depict the significance of this revolutionary case, to this date, on the Law of Torts, as it continues to shape judgments by the infamous legal principle established by it, that manufacturers owe a duty of care to end consumers. 

Reference(S):

[1] Business Bliss Consultants FZE, ‘Donoghue v Stevenson Case Summary’ (Lawteacher.net, October 2025) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/donoghue-v-stevenson.php?vref=1> accessed 3 October 2025

[2] Ruchika Mohapatra, ‘Case Analysis: Donoghue v Stevenson’ (Catalogue For Law Aspirants , 28 May 2025) <https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/donoghue-v-stevenson/> accessed 3 October 2025

[3] Ananya Sharma, ‘Case Brief: Donoghue v Stevenson’ (Law Bhoomi, 29 Apr 2025) <https://lawbhoomi.com/donoghue-v-stevenson/#Appellants_Arguments> accessed 3 October 2025

[4] (Di Roma, 2021 https://www.scienzegiuridiche.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/docenti/alpa/Donoghue_Stevenson.pdf)

[5] Ferrari F, ‘Donoghue v. Stevenson ’s 60th Anniversary’ (1994) 1 Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law