Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

[1932-05-26] House of Lords

Facts

In 1928, Mrs. Donoghue and a friend visited a café in Paisley, Scotland. Her friend ordered a drink for her, manufactured by Mr. Stevenson. The drink was in an opaque bottle, so its contents were not visible and after drinking some, Mrs. Donoghue poured out the remainder into a glass and discovered a decomposed snail in the bottle. Because of this, not only was she shocked, but she got sick as a result. Since Mrs. Donoghue had not purchased the drink herself, she could not sue under a contract. Instead, she sued Mr. Stevenson, the manufacturer, for negligence, claiming he had a duty of care to ensure the drink was safe for consumption.

Issues

The first main issue was if the manufacturer actually owed a duty of care to the consumer and if the manufacturer was responsible despite not being in a contract with Mrs. Donoghue but rather her friend, who actually purchased the drink.

Decision

The House of Lords ruled in favour of Mrs. Donoghue, establishing that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, even if no direct contractual relationship exists.

Ratio Decidendi

To justify this decision, Lord Atkin formulated the “Neighbour Principle” which explains the principle that a person owes a duty of care to their “neighbour,” defined as anyone who could be reasonably foreseen to be affected by their actions. He stated, “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.”

Furthermore, the absence of a direct contractual relationship between Mrs. Donoghue and Mr. Stevenson did not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility. The focus was on the relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer, as the latter could foreseeably be affected by the former's negligence.

That being said, it was established that manufacturers owe a duty to ensure that products reaching consumers are safe for use or consumption, particularly in cases where the consumer cannot inspect the product such as sealed bottles.

Significance

This case established the modern tort of negligence, which requires proof of a duty of care, breach of that duty, and resulting harm. The “neighbour principle” has become a major part of negligence law in common law jurisdictions. The ruling extended liability to cases where no direct contractual relationship exists, protecting consumers from harm caused by negligent manufacturers. The decision also emphasised fairness and accountability, ensuring that individuals or companies whose actions foreseeably cause harm are held responsible.

Works Cited

“Donoghue v Stevenson Case Resources.” Scottish Council of Law Reporting,

https://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/resources/donoghue-v-stevenson/case-report/.