Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (House of Lords)

Court: House of Lords (UK)
Judges:

• Lord Atkin

• Lord Buckmaster

• Lord Tomlin

• Lord Macmillan

• Lord Thankerton

Facts:

In Paisley, Scotland, Mrs. Donoghue received a bottle of ginger beer from a friend who bought it at a local café. The drink, manufactured by Mr. Stevenson, was sealed in an opaque bottle, preventing visibility of its contents. After consuming most of the beverage, Mrs. Donoghue poured the remaining liquid and found a decomposed snail inside. She experienced physical illness, including shock and gastroenteritis. Despite having no direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer, she brought a legal claim against Mr. Stevenson for negligence.

Issues:

• Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to a consumer who is not directly in a contractual relationship with them?

• How far does this duty extend?

Judgment:

Majority Decision (3:2): The court ruled in favour of Mrs. Donoghue.

Lord Atkin (Leading Judgment):

Lord Atkin delivered the landmark judgment and introduced the influential “neighbour principle,” a foundational element in negligence law. 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 explained that a “neighbour,” in legal terms, refers to:

“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.”

According to Lord Atkin, a manufacturer is legally obliged to exercise reasonable care toward the final consumer of their product.

Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan (Concurring):

Agreeing with the majority, Lord Thankerton underscored the role of foreseeability and the sufficiently close connection between the manufacturer and the consumer.

Lord Macmillan emphasized that legal principles must evolve with changing societal and economic contexts. He described negligence as a flexible legal standard and concluded that a clear duty of care existed in this case.

Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin (Dissenting):

Dissenting from the majority, Lord Buckmaster maintained that no duty of care could be recognized in the absence of a contractual link. He cautioned the judiciary against creating new legal obligations without parliamentary authority.

Lord Tomlin supported this view, arguing that legal rulings should be grounded in established precedent rather than moral or ethical judgments.

Legal Principle:

This case firmly established the modern doctrine of negligence in tort law. It clarified that a duty of care arises when harm is reasonably foreseeable, and there exists a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties involved.

Significance:

• This decision distinguished the tort of negligence from contractual obligations.

• It laid the foundation for the legal concept of “duty of care” within common law systems.

• The case has become a cornerstone in personal injury and product liability litigation and is frequently cited in courts across various jurisdictions.