| Citation | [1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, 1932 S.L.T. 317, [1932] W.N. 139 | |
| Date of judgement | 26 May 1932 | |
| Court | Judicial function of the house of lord | |
| Appellant | Donoghue | |
| Respondent | Steveson | |
| Judge(s) | Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton And Lord Macmillan |
Introduction
Nearly every law student has heard of the well-known case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), sometimes known as “the snail in the bottle.” It was not only a significant decision in the history of common law but was also highly relevant to the growth of tort law, a body of law that still has many uncertainties. The “neighbour principle” as articulated by Lord Atkin and the introduction of a uniform duty of care in negligence cases are the two aspects of the decision’s revolutionary importance.
Facts
- For his acquaintance Mrs. Donoghue, the appellant, Mr. Minchella bought a bottle of ginger beer on August 26, 1928, from the Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley, Scotland. There was no reason to believe that the ginger beer bottle may have contained anything other than ginger beer because it was constructed of black opaque glass.
- The remaining ginger beer was put into a glass after approximately half of the bottle’s contents had been consumed; the lifeless, decomposing remnants of a snail drifted into it. The appellant experienced shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result of the sickening appearance and the negative effects of consuming the bottle’s contaminants.
- The matter was initially brought in the Second Division of the Scottish Sessions Court, where the Lord Ordinary issued an interlocutor for evidence upon the discovery of the petitioner’s good cause of action. However, after a second interlocutor was issued by the majority recalling the first interlocutor, the case was dismissed. The House of Lords then received a petition for review.
Issue
- The key question in this case was whether a manufacturer may be held accountable for damage a defective product caused to a customer.
Judgement
- By a 3:2 margin, the jury found in favour of the appellant, Mrs. Donoghue. Leading the judgement, Lord Atkin stated that Mrs. Donoghue was clearly owed a duty of care in this particular circumstance.
- The belief was that-
- All of the product’s end users were owed a duty of care by the maker.
- The aforementioned responsibility could only occur if there was no means to conduct an intermediate examination of the product and the harm was a direct result of the breach of duty.
- According to the recognised law of privity of contract, the manufacturer owed the appellant no contractual obligations, but they did have a general duty of care to maintain the integrity of the goods.
- The appellant’s case went against the established principles, according to Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin, who offered a dissenting opinion. Lord Buckmaster urged the applicability of the exemption to only those items which were intrinsically harmful and emphasised the significance of maintaining the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous products.
- Additionally, both of these judges disputed the validity of George v. Skivington (1869) and voiced worry about the potential for a domino effect of cases if the manufacturers’ scope of culpability was expanded. According to Lord Buckmaster, placing such a large burden on the industrial sector would be irresponsible on both a social and financial level. Lord Tomlin believed that such an accomplishment was illogical.
Conclusion
- Thus, Donoghue v. Stevenson is effective in establishing a bar for the required level of care. However, as legal turbulence grew more intense, the established standard began to seem overly straightforward. Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman (1990) introduced a more complex three-step neighbour test. However, Lord Atkin’s initial idea served as the foundation for the exam. This idea has been extended further in other situations.
- Therefore, it is impossible to overstate the importance of this case. The Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Deepti Singh and Ors. (2019) in the Supreme Court of India is one recent instance of how this case is still cited.
- However, many academics disagree with the ongoing excitement around this issue, claiming that the established principles are too simple. However, the author thinks that there is a need to carefully examine the provided case law for just this reason. It is reasonable to say that as instances get more complicated, there is an urgent need to review all the fundamental concepts that are now taken for granted.
Reference
This Article is written by Chahak Agarwal of Lloyd school of law , greater Noida, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
