Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

Published On: 28th January, 2025

Authored By: Aliza Akram Khan
R.P.S LAW COLLEGE, PATNA

INTRODUCTION

In the law of tort, Donoghue v. Stevenson is considered a landmark case. This case is popularly known as the ‘Snail in the Bottle case’. This is the case in Scotland. The significance of this case is that it established the general principle of the duty of care concept in law. Duty of care means, the duty is fixed by law and if a person breaches his duty to take care and the other person suffered any injury or harm due to such breach of duty then he will be liable for such harm or injury. The harm must be reasonably foreseen, to hold the person liable for the tort. This case also established the ‘neighbour principle’ to establish a duty of care. It also held that the manufacturer of any product owed a duty of care to the customer. In this way, it ensures the safety of customers from the products used by them.

Facts of the case

‘Mrs Donoghue along with her friend went to Wellmeadow Café in Paisley (Scotland). They ordered a Scotsman’s Ice Cream Float, a mixture of ginger beer and ice cream for themselves’[1]. The owner of that café brought a tumbler of ice cream and ginger beer and he poured some ginger beer onto the ice cream from a bottle. The bottle was opaque. Mrs Donoghue consumed half of the bottle and then she poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler. Mrs Donoghue observed the decomposed body of a dead snail in the tumbler. She fell ill from the sight and later she complained of having severe abdominal pain.

The ginger beer was manufactured by David Stevenson Company. ‘On 9th April 1929 Mrs Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer, in which she claimed £500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer’. The defendant pleaded that there was not his duty to care as there was no contract between them.

The issue raised in Donoghue v. Stevenson

  • Could an action be taken on part of negligence against the manufacturer as the product was dangerous to health?
  • Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care towards the customer when there is no direct contract between them?
  • Could the manufacturer held liable under the neighbour principle as there was no contractual relation with the plaintiff?

Judgement and principles established

Mrs Donoghue argued that Mr Stevenson owed a duty to care towards the customer who consumes ginger beer manufactured by them. According to Stevenson, he sold the bottle to a retailer and then it was sold to the owner of that café where the plaintiff went and consumed the ginger beer. He claimed that there was no direct contract between them and therefore he was not responsible for the harm and was not liable to compensate.

The matter was first discussed in the Outer House of Court of Session. In this instance, the owner of the café was the defendant but later the case was dropped on the reason that there was no contract with the plaintiff as the ginger beer was purchased by the plaintiff’s friend. Lord Moncriff held that in order to hold the person liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff there must exist a contractual relationship between them and on this basis, the matter was dismissed. An appeal was made by Stevenson in the Inner House of the Court of Session. It was held that the manufacturer has no duty to care if there is the absence of a contractual relationship.

Mrs Donoghue then appealed to the House of Lords where it was held that in order to make the manufacturer liable it is necessary that the article must reach the consumer in the form in which it was left from manufacturer without any opportunity to examination of that article. It was also held that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the consumer. The manufacturer is responsible for providing good quality products which does not hamper consumer safety.

The following are the principles laid down in this case-

Negligence is a tort

In this case, it was established that a manufacturer will be held responsible for negligence if it was shown that he failed to take reasonable care in order to provide safety to the consumer from their products. Generally, negligence arises when the manufacturer has made a product which is defective or which is likely to cause harm to the consumer, basically, it will hamper consumer safety.

If the manufacturer reasonably foresees that their actions may cause harm to the consumer and fails to take steps to prevent such harm, they can be held liable for negligence. It is their responsibility to ensure that the products manufactured by them are safe for the consumer.

Duty of Care

The manufacturer owed a duty to care towards the consumer even if there was no contractual relation between them. If the harm is foreseeable then a duty to care arises and he must take precautions in order to prevent such harm.

In other words, manufacturer owes a duty to their entire possible customer. This judgment not only expanded the scope of the duty of care but also strengthened consumer protection rights, leading to further reforms to ensure consumer safety.

Neighbour Principle

This principle was introduced in the Donoghue v. Stevenson case by Lord Atrin. ‘A neighbour is a person who is closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as to being so affected when directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question’[2]. According to this principle, one must take reasonable action or care in order to avoid certain acts that could possibly injure one’s neighbour. Lord Atkin stated, “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes, in law, you must not injure your neighbour”[3].

Ratio decidendi in Donoghue v. Stevenson case

‘The case was heard by a five-judge panel, and the decision was made by a majority of 3: 2 in favour of Mrs Donoghue.’[4]. To win a case majority decision is enough it is not necessary to have a unanimous decision. The decision of the majority was discussed above but the minority opinion was also necessary to understand.

‘Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan and Lord Thankerton were in the majority. Lord Tomlin and Lord Buckmaster were in the minority’[5][6]. According to Lord Buckmaster, there is no duty of care towards the third party who is outside the contract. According to Lord Buckmaster, he said the duty of care cannot be imposed on all manufacturers it can only be imposed on the manufacturer who produces the hazardous product.

Impact of this case on tort law

The ruling of the House of Lords in this case had a great impact on tort law especially on the law of negligence. Negligence literally means carelessness. There are three main elements of negligence to hold a person liable for the act of negligence are, the defendant must own a duty of care, furthermore, a breach of such duty to take care and lastly the plaintiff or claimant must have suffered damages or loss. It has been said that where there is a breach of duty of care there is negligence. A person can take civil action against the defendant if any injury is suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s negligence.

In the case of Mullen v. AG Barr and Co Ltd[7], it was held that no duty of care arises in the absence of a contractual relationship. But in this case, it was clearly said that the duty of care is towards every person who is the consumer, there is no need for a contractual relationship. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer i.e. plaintiff in the present case as she was directly affected by the manufacturer’s act hence the defendant will be liable for negligence and was ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff as compensation for the harm caused to her. This case has broadened the scope of liability which was limited to contractual relations. ‘This case also established that negligence is a separate and distinct tort’7. It made manufacturers accountable towards consumers which was a great step towards consumer safety.

Conclusion

This case is definitely a landmark case on the tort of negligence. It has established the principle of duty of care and neighbour principle. Earlier there was a need for a contractual relationship between the consumer and manufacturer to hold the manufacturer liable but after this case, there is no need for a contractual relationship.

This case also made people aware of the rights of consumers and protection from hazardous products. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to take reasonable precautions before making the product. Later laws were made upon the rights and protection of consumers.

Reference(s):

[1] Anusruta Debnath, ‘Donoghue v. Stevenson: Case Analysis’ (ipleader,21 December 2021)

<https://blog.ipleaders.in/donoghue-v-stevenson-case-analysis/> accessed 24 October 2024

[2] Donoghuev.Stevenson[1932] AC 562

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Hannah, ‘Case Summary…the background to Donoghue v Stevenson?’ ( Carlil & Carbolic, 20 February

[6] ) <https://carlilandcarbolic.com/donoghue-v-stevenson/> accessed 27 October 2024

[7] Mullenv.AGBarrandCoLtd[1929] SC 461 (Ct Sess) 7Ibid

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top