CASE STUDY: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932)
Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the ‘snail in the bottle case’, is a significant case in
Western law. The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged
businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers.
The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928. While attending a store, Ms
May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased for her by a friend. The bottle
was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not made of clear
glass, Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail. She
later fell ill. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the
manufacturer of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland’s
highest civil court, seeking £500 damages.
Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased
the drink herself. Instead, Donoghue’s lawyers claimed that Stevenson had breached a duty
of care to his consumers and caused injury through negligence. At the time, this area of civil
law was largely untested. Stevenson’s lawyers challenged Donoghue’s action on the basis
that no precedents existed for such a claim. They referred to an earlier action by
Donoghue’s lawyer, Mullen v. AG Barr, where a dead mouse was found in a bottle of soft
drink; judges dismissed this action due to a lack of precedent.
Donoghue’s initial action failed but she was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords
(which, at the time, had the judicial authority to hear appellate cases). The leading
judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932, established that Stevenson was responsible for
the well-being of individuals who consumed his products, given that they could not be
inspected.
The case was returned to the original court. Stevenson died before the case was finalized
and Donoghue was awarded a reduced amount of damages from his estate.
The outcomes of Donoghue v. Stevenson established several legal principles and
precedents:
(1) Negligence. Firstly, the House of Lords ruling affirmed that negligence is a tort. A plaintiff
can take civil action against a respondent if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff
injury or loss of property. Previously, the plaintiff had to demonstrate some contractual
arrangement for negligence to be proven, such as the sale of an item or an agreement to
provide a service. Since Donoghue had not purchased the drink, she could prove no
contractual arrangement with Stevenson – yet Lord Atkin’s judgement established that
Stevenson was still responsible for the integrity of his product.
(2) Duty of care. Secondly, the case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to
the end consumers or users of their products.
(3) Neighbour principle. Thirdly, the Donoghue v. Stevenson case produced Lord Atkin’s
controversial “neighbour principle”, which extended the tort of negligence beyond the
tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be
affected by negligent actions. In Donoghue’s case, she had not purchased the ginger beer
but had received it as a gift; she was a “neighbour” rather than a party to the contract. Atkin
said of this principle: “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 to have them in [mind] when I am [considering these] acts or omissions.”
Comments
Post a Comment