Case Summary: Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562

Court: House of Lords (United Kingdom)

Bench: Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan (majority); Lord Buckmaster, Lord Tomlin (dissenting)

Date of Judgment: May 26, 1932

Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: Common law principles of negligence in tort (no specific statutes; draws on precedents like Heaven v Pender (1883) and Le Lievre v Gould (1893))

Brief Facts

On August 26, 1928, Mrs. May Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, where her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by David Stevenson. The bottle was opaque, preventing inspection of its contents. After consuming part of the beer, the remainder was poured out, revealing a decomposed snail. Donoghue suffered shock, nausea, and severe gastroenteritis as a result. She sued Stevenson for damages, alleging negligence in manufacturing, despite no direct contractual relationship between them.

Issues Involved:

1. Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product when there is no contractual privity?
2. Can a breach of such a duty give rise to a civil action in tort for negligence?
3. What is the scope of foreseeability and proximity in establishing liability for harm caused by defective products?

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Manufacturers have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure their products are safe for consumption and free from defects that could foreseeably cause harm.
• The presence of the snail indicated negligence in the manufacturing or bottling process, as the opaque bottle design prevented consumers from detecting contaminants.
• Liability should extend beyond contract to protect end-users, drawing on evolving precedents like MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. (1916). 

Respondent’s Arguments:

• No duty of care exists without a direct contractual relationship (privity of contract), as established in cases like Winterbottom v Wright (1842).
• The snail could have entered the bottle after leaving the manufacturer’s control, during retail handling or storage.
• There was insufficient evidence of causation between the contaminant and Donoghue’s illness, and foreseeability of harm to a non-purchaser was too remote.

Judgment

In a 3:2 majority decision, the House of Lords allowed Donoghue’s appeal, holding that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to avoid foreseeable harm from defective products. Lord Atkin introduced the “neighbor principle,” emphasizing that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure those closely and directly affected. The court rejected the strict privity requirement, expanding negligence beyond contractual bounds. The case was remitted for proof of facts at trial, but it settled out of court.

Ratio Decidendi

A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer to ensure products are free from defects likely to cause injury, based on the principles of proximity and reasonable foreseeability of harm (the “neighbor principle”): persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that they ought reasonably to be in contemplation as being affected when directing one’s mind to the acts or omissions in question.

Obiter Dicta

Lord Atkin referenced the biblical parable “Who is my neighbor?” from the Gospel of Luke to illustrate the moral foundation of the duty of care, observing that the law should align with ethical principles of avoiding harm to others. He also noted that the principle could apply broadly to various relationships beyond manufacturer-consumer, such as builders or repairers.

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed in favor of Donoghue; the manufacturer’s demurrer was rejected, and the case was permitted to proceed to trial on the facts (though it ultimately settled). The decision established manufacturer liability in negligence independent of contract.