Ist Year B.B.A. LL.

B – Semester-I

2nd - Internal Assessment

Legal Research Writing

Case Analysis

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

NAME: Esha Singh

PRN: 24010126164
COURSE: BBA LL.B. (Hons.)
BATCH: 2024-2029
 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): [1932] UKHL 100 [1932] SC (HL) 31 [1932] AC
562 [1932] All ER Rep 1

1. Donoghue v. Stevenson case also known as the “ginger beer case” and “snail-in-a-bottle
case”, was a foundational decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House
of Lords, and was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and introduced the doctrine of
negligence. It established the general principle of the duty of care concept in law. Lord
Atkin, House of Lords formulated the test referred to as the “neighbour test” or
“neighbour principle”. This landmark judgment has laid down the foundation for the rule
of liability of the manufacturer to the end consumer.
FACTS OF THE CASE

2. On 26th August, 1928, Mrs. May Donoghue visited a café named Wellmeadow Café with
her friend Mr. Minchella. It’s located in Paisley, Renfrewshire, a town in the west central
lowlands of Scotland. Mr. Minchella, her friend ordered a local delicacy for her called
“Scotsman Floater” which is an ice cream with ginger beer poured over it.
3. David Stevenson, the defendant, manufactured the ginger beer that Mrs. Donoghue, the
appellant got. The ginger beer bottle was made of dark opaque glass, and thus, there was
no reason to suspect that the bottle might have contained anything other than ginger beer.
Hence, Mrs. Donoghue poured half the ginger beer into ice cream and consumed half of
the contents of the ginger beer. Later on, she started pouring ginger beer into a tumbler
and saw dead, decomposed remains of a snail floating in it.
4. Mrs Donoghue, the appellant alleged that the nauseating sight coupled with the
consequences of ingesting the impurities in the bottle caused her shock and severe gastro-
enteritis.
5. Mrs Donoghue had no direct contact with the owner of the café, Francis Minghella as she
didn’t purchase the ginger beer, and her friend, who did order it, was unharmed. Because
of this, she couldn’t sue Minghella as Injuries from defective products typically arise
from the sales contract between seller and consumer, therefore wouldn’t get
compensation. She neither had a contract with Stevenson, the manufacturer, therefore she
couldn’t bring a lawsuit against Stevenson over breach of contract.
6. Therefore, she filed the case against Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer in the
Second Division of Sessions Court of Scotland, which was based on negligence and the
case made its way up to the House of Lords.
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

7. The following issues were raised in this case :

a) Was the manufacturer of the ginger beer aware of the defect in the product
that made it unfit to consume and was it fraudulently concealed
from the consumer?
b) Could the product be classified as dangerous per se and was there a
failure on part of the manufacturer to warn the consumer of the
same? Hence, does the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the
customer who has not purchased the product directly?
c) Would an action of negligence be applicable because there was no
contract formed between the plaintiff and the manufacturer?

RULES OF THE CASE

8. The following Legal principles were established in this case:

a) The “neighbour” Principle: Lord Atkin, House of Lords established the principle to
determine the individuals to which duty of care was owed. He called such individuals
“neighbours”. The doctrine of reasonable foreseeability is used to determine these
neighbours. The doctrine of reasonable foreseeability is based on the idea that a
defendant should only be held liable if they could reasonably foresee the harm that
occurred. The court ruled that the manufacturer is responsible for considering the
safety of consumers that a reasonable man could reasonably foresee might get
affected by their products.
b) Duty to care: Lord Atkin, House of Lords observed that “a manufacturer of
products, which he sells…to reach the ultimate consumer in the form which left him…
owes a duty of care to the consumer”. This Principle establishes that a manufacturer
has a duty to care to not just those who the manufacturer has direct contact with, but
also to the end consumer of the product. The manufacturer owes a duty to care to all
their possible consumers. It was use as a precedent in numerous avenues in consumer
protection and consumer rights.
c) Negligence: The tort of negligence was established as a distinct tort in this case.
Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage when
there is a duty to care. Before this case, as per law, one needed to prove the presence
of the contract and its breach to prove negligence. However, after this case, it was
 necessary to demonstrate a violation of duty or a failure to act in accordance with
reasonable man’s standards; a contract was not required, nor was there a resulting
harm to the law in order to claim for negligence.

ANALYSIS/APPLICATION

9. The ginger beer bottle in question was manufactured and packed by Stevenson and was
sold to the public for consumption. Moreover, the bottles had labels of the respondent’s
company, and it was the respondent who used metal caps to seal them. The manufacturers
should have ensured that a system was in place to ensure that dangerous items like snails
would not get into their packaged products and also an efficient system of inspection to
conduct checks before the bottles were sealed. The manufacturers failed to do so, as the
snail was found in the opaque ginger bottle. Lord Denuedin’s observations in Dominion
Natural Gas v. Collins and Perkins(1909) stated that anyone who sent out items that
were dangerous to the public had a common law need to exercise prudence.. The
respondent invited the public to consume the product they manufactured, bottled, labelled
and sealed; they owed a duty of care to the appellant to ensure nothing in the bottle would
harm such a consumer. As per the “neighbour” principle, manufacturers could
reasonably foresee the harm caused to the customers. The most significant judgement
comes from Lord Atkin. He stated, “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
This idea established a standard and reaffirmed that companies must put customer safety
first.
10. The manufacturers owed a duty to care for customers as they had the moral and legal
duty to ensure that no dangerous item per se snail enters their products. And because they
failed such duty to care, the appellant suffered harm. As mentioned in Caparo Industries
Plc v Dickman (1990), in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients
in a situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party
owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as
one of ‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one in which the court considers
it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one
party for the benefit of the other. This judgment clarified that indirect customers may seek
remedies since the duty of care extends beyond direct contractual agreements. It
 highlights the moral and legal obligations that producers have to all possible customers of
their goods.
11. Due to the harm caused to the appellant because of the breach of duty to care, the
manufacturers were held liable for negligence and had to pay damages for it. The court
emphasized that the inability to use reasonable care leads to negligence. Stevenson's
negligence in guaranteeing the safety of the goods resulted in harm, setting a clear
requirement that manufacturers must fulfil to avoid liability. In George v. Skivington
(1869), it was held that ordinary care was owed to persons using the product even in lack
of a contractual relationship. It was held in the House of Lords that due to the failure of
ordinary care that was owed to customers by the manufacturers, this case is of negligent
in tort law.
CONCLUSION

12. The House of Lords held the manufacturer owed a duty to care to all end customers of
their product, injury caused was a proximate cause of breach of duty to care as the said
liability could arise if and only there was no way of intermediate inspection of the
product. And the manufacturer did not owe any contractual duty towards the appellant but
at the same time owed a general duty of care to ensure the integrity of the said product.
Hence, Stevenson was liable of being negligent due to failure of duty of care to its
customer, Mrs. Donoghue.