DONOGHUE V/S STEVENSON [1932]

Citation	[1932] AC 562
Date of Judgement	26 May 1932
Court	Judicial functions of the House of Lords
Plaintiff	Mrs. Donoghue
Respondent	Stevenson
Held by	Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan.

INTRODUCTION

Donoghue v. Stevenson, a Scottish case, is a famous case in English law that was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and establishing the doctrine of negligence. It is a landmark case in tort law. The wider significance of the case is that it established the general principle of the concept of duty of care in the law. The test was formulated by Lord Atkin and is generally referred to as the “neighbor test” or the “neighbor principle”.

Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the “Paisley Snail Case”, is a landmark legal case heard in the House of Lords in 1932 and is considered a key case in the development of negligence law in the United Kingdom.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On August 26, 1928, a friend of Mrs. Donoghue’s (plaintiff) bought her ginger beer. She consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass thus, there was no reason to suspect that the bottle might have contained anything other than ginger beer, while pouring the rest into a tumbler.

After consuming almost half of the bottle’s contents, when the remainder of the ginger beer was poured into the glass, the dead, decomposed remains of the snail floated into it. T

Mrs. Donoghue was not able to sue for breach of contractual warranty because she was not a party to any contract. Therefore, she issued proceedings against Stevenson, which reached the House of Lords as the manufacturer (the defendant).

ISSUE RAISED 

• Did the manufacturer of ginger beer know of a defect in the product that made it unfit for consumption and was it fraudulently concealed from the consumer?
• Could the product have been classified as dangerous in itself and there was a failure on the part of the manufacturer to warn the consumer?
• Would it be possible to bring an action in negligence in view of the fact that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the manufacturer?

CONTENTIONS 

Plaintiff’s Argument:

The ginger bottle was manufactured and sold to the public for consumption by the respondent – the bottle bore the labels of the respondent’s company and it was he who used the metal caps to seal them.

The defendant, because the manufacturers should have ensured that

• A system was put in place to ensure that snails did not get into their packaged products.
• An effective inspection system was in place to carry out checks before bottles were sealed.

According to the appellants, the respondents failed to fulfill both of these obligations and caused this accident. Since the respondent invited the public (including the appellant) to consume a product that they manufactured, bottled, labeled and sealed and did not offer the consumer the opportunity to examine its contents, it bound the appellant to ensure that the bottle would injure such a consumer.

In addition, the petitioners argued that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applicable in the instant case. The fact that there was a snail in the bottle spoke for itself about the carelessness of the manufacturers.

Defendants Argument:

The opponents argued that the plaintiff’s injury claims were exaggerated, not as a cause of the alleged snail, but because of existing health problems. Thus, the allegations were irrelevant and insufficient to constitute proper cause for a summons.

JUDGMENT 

The matter was first heard in the Outer Chambers of the High Court before Lord Moncrieff. Here, the cafe owner was added as a defendant but later dropped on the grounds of lack of contractual relationship with Donoghue because her friend had bought the ginger beer and the fact that the cafe owner could not examine the contents of the bottle.

Lord Moncrieff rejected the argument and case law which required that a contractual relationship must exist between the parties before liability could arise for negligence in the preparation of goods for consumption. He described the principle as narrow.

Stevenson appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Sessions, presided over by four judges, who heard the case of Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd, where it was held that no duty of care could arise without a contractual relationship. The appeal was therefore allowed by a majority of the judges, Lord Hunter again dissenting.

Donoghue appealed to the House of Lords. The judges who heard her appeal were Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Tomlin, Lord Buckmaster, and Lord MacMillan. Donoghue’s Counsel argued that Stevenson owed a duty of care that was independent of the contract because the bottles in which the ginger ales came could not be examined and also because they were intended for human consumption.

Stevenson’s Counsel argued that it was established law in England and Scotland that manufacturers owed no duty to anyone with whom they did not have a direct contract. They argued that the exceptions that had been created in English and Scottish law were not present in this case; that is, the ginger ale was not actually dangerous and that defendant Stevenson was not aware that the product was dangerous.

The House of Lords came out in favor of Donoghue, though not unanimously.

According to Lord Atkin, the case was important because its decision would have an impact on public health. The moral rule that requires a man to love his neighbor, or mother-in-law, manifests itself to him as the rule that he must take care not to injure his neighbor. He says that care must be exercised and that care must be reasonable so as not to endanger one’s neighbor or cause foreseeable harm to another. He defined a neighbor as one who will be directly affected by someone’s act or omission to such an extent that such a person should be brought into contemplation when he commits such an act or omission.

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) All ER Rep. 1 is a landmark case in the common law of England that established the modern law of negligence. The case established the principle that a person owes a duty of care to another person if there is a relationship of proximity between the parties, and this principle has since been adopted in the common law systems of many countries. The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson has had a lasting impact on the development of the common law and is widely regarded as one of the most important cases in the history of English common law.

REFERENCE

https://blog.ipleaders.in/donoghue-v-stevenson-case-analysis/

https://legalbots.in/blog/donoghue-v-stevenson-case-brief-202205300629586294bfce9f15a

This Article is written by Tanya Baweja of Maharaja Agrasen Institute Of Management Studies, an Intern at Legal Vidhya.