Donoghue v. Stevenson Citation – [1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, 1932 S.L.T. 317, [1932] W.N. 139

Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular

Court	House of lords
Full case name	M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson
Decided	26 May 1932
Citation(s)	[1932] UKHL 100 [1932] SC (HL) 31 [1932] AC 562 [1932] All ER Rep 1
Transcript(s)	House of Lords transcript

Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular.

Facts in Donoghue v Stevenson

A ginger-beer from Paisley’s Wellmeadow Café [1] was purchased by Mrs. Donoghue’s acquaintance on August 26^th, 1928. The container was made of dark opaque glass, and she drank about half of it, pouring the rest Into a tumbler. She allegedly suffered from severe gastro-enteritis and shock as a result of the floating out of a snail’s decomposed remains at this juncture.

Mrs Donoghue was not able to claim through breach of warranty of a contract: she was not party to any contract. Therefore, she issued proceedings against Stevenson, the manufacture, which snaked its way up to the House of Lords.

Issue

Does a manufacturer of ginger beer bottles owe a duty of care to the end consumer while he didn’t directly sell it to him, but only via a distributor? 

One of the most important concepts in civil law is negligence. It refers to behaviour that might be categorised as being either unreasonable or careless, or as a breach of a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care, and which subsequently causes damage to a personIn several cases, the courts have given recognition to a duty of care existing due to some relationship between the parties. For example, a doctor and patient, employer and employee, manufacturer and consumer, one road-user to another, etc.

There are three pertinent essentials of this particular tort:

1. The defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff
2. There was a subsequent breach of that duty
3. The plaintiff suffered damages as a consequence of the breach

According to Professor Winfield- “Negligence as a tort is the breach of duty to take care which results in damages.”

Judgement 

Donoghue contended that Stevenson had a duty of care to the people who would drink his ginger beer to have a reliable method in place to clean the bottle and keep snails out of it. Stevenson insisted that none of his bottles contained snails and claimed that Donoghue’s health issues were a result of her own poor health. He claimed that the allegations were unfounded, he did not hurt Donoghue, and the amount of damages sought was excessive

The matter was first heard in the Outer House of the Court of Sessions before Lord Moncrieff. Here, the owner of the café was added as a defendant but later dropped him because of his lack of contractual relationship with Donoghue, as the ginger beer was purchased by her friend and the fact that the owner of the cafe could not have possibly examined the content of the bottle.

Lord Moncrieff, dismissed the argument and case law that required that there must be a contractual relationship between the parties before liability can be incurred for negligence in preparing goods for consumption. He described the principle as narrow.

Stevenson appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Sessions which was presided over by four judges who had heard the case of  Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd where it was held that no duty of care could arise in the absence of a contractual relationship. Thus, the appeal was allowed by the majority of the judges while Lord Hunter dissented again.

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 contract because the bottles in which the ginger beers come in could not be examined and also because it was meant for human consumption.

According to Stevenson’s attorney, it is established law in England and Scotland that manufacturers have no obligation to third parties with whom they do not have a clear contractual relationship. They claimed that the ginger beer was not inherently dangerous and that the defendant, Stevenson, was unaware that the product was hazardous, thereby negating the exceptions made in English and Scottish statutes.The House of Lords held in favour of Donoghue, albeit, not unanimously.

The case was significant, in Lord Atkin’s opinion, because of the impact on public health that the outcome would have. According to him, the moral requirement to respect one’s neighbour or in-law manifests as the requirement to exercise caution to avoid doing harm to one’s neighbour. According to him, one must exercise caution and that caution must be fair in order to avoid endangering or foreseeably injuring one’s neighbour. He described a neighbour as someone who will be immediately impacted by one’s action or inaction to the extent that one must keep them in mind while taking that action or not taking that inaction.

Impact: The doctrine of negligence in the UK and other common law countries has been significantly impacted by the Donoghue v. Stevenson case. The case established a standard for the degree of care that a manufacturer must exercise to ensure the safety of his products as well as the duty of care that manufacturers pledge to customers. The case also established the rule that a manufacturer may be held accountable for damage brought on by a flaw in his product, even if he was unaware of the flaw at the time of production.

In conclusion, Donoghue v. Stevenson is a significant case that influenced the evolution of the law of negligence in the UK and other common law countries. A standard for the degree of care that a manufacturer must exercise to fulfil this duty has been established by the case, which established the concept that a manufacturer must take reasonable care to ensure that his goods are safe for consumers to use.

The negligence tort was properly established in this case as a separate tort. After this case, one had to demonstrate an obligation violation on the part of the manufacturer before suing them for negligence. There is no requirement for a prior deal of any kind. For instance, if the product’s manufacturer was unable to fulfil his obligations and the results were dangerous, we would have filed a tort of negligence case. As in this instance, Mrs. Donoghue was unable to create a contractual relationship with Stevenson because she did not buy the beverage herself, but Lord Atkin’s ruling made it clear that Stevenson was still responsible for the quality of his goods.

written by-Areeba Ahad , B.A.LL.B10th sem , VITASTA SCHOOL OF LAW AND HUMANITIES intern under legal vidhiya