CASE NAME	Donoghue v. Stevenson
CITATION	[1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100
COURT	Heard in the House of Lords
Bench	Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan
Date of Decision	May 26, 1932

INTRODUCTION

Donoghue v. Stevenson is regarded as one of the most famous and crucial decisions in tort law history, having shaped the contemporary idea of negligence and its fundamental principles. This historic decision, known as the “snail in the bottle” case, broadened the scope of legal responsibility beyond contractual ties, laying the groundwork for creating a duty of care owed by one party to another.

This case began with a fairly commonplace occurrence in Paisley, Scotland, where May Donoghue drank ginger beer that purportedly included a decomposed snail. Donoghue, who had not purchased the drink herself, filed a lawsuit against the producer, David Stevenson, seeking damages for the injuries caused by drinking the infected beverage. This case raised a fundamental question in tort law: may a producer owe a duty of care to a customer who did not buy the product directly?

In this case brief, we examine the facts, legal reasoning, and decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson, which established the “neighbor principle” and a universal framework for establishing a duty of care. Lord Atkin’s well-known aphorism remains relevant in legal discourse, cementing this case as a cornerstone of negligence law around the world.

FACTS

Mrs. Donoghue went to Wellmeadow Café in Paisley with a friend on August 26, 1928, and her companion ordered her a ginger beer. The ginger beer was packaged in a dark, opaque glass bottle whose contents could not be seen. Mrs. Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer after pouring it over ice cream in a tumbler. However, as her friend put the remaining contents into the glass, the decayed remnants of a snail floated out, purportedly causing Mrs. Donoghue to have acute shock and gastroenteritis.

Mrs. Donoghue was unable to file a breach of contract action because she had no contractual relationship with either the café owner or the manufacturer, David Stevenson. Instead, she filed a negligence claim against Stevenson. The matter eventually reached the House of Lords, where it was debated whether a maker owes a duty of care to the end user. This legal fight was pivotal in creating the contemporary doctrine of negligence, radically changing the scope of responsibility and duty of care in common law jurisdictions.

ISSUES

• Is the ginger beer maker responsible for the tort of negligence?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Arguments by the appellant 

• The appellants contended that the respondent made ginger beer, sealed the bottles with metal caps showing the company’s branding, and distributed them for public consumption. As a manufacturer, the respondent was required to create an effective system to keep extraneous objects, such as snails, from contaminating the product. They claimed that the respondent failed to conduct proper inspections before sealing the bottles, which resulted in the occurrence.
• The appellants further emphasized that the respondent had a duty of care to consumers, including the appellant, to ensure that their products were safe to ingest. The respondent failed to comply with this duty by bottling, labeling, and sealing the ginger beer without allowing consumers to see its contents. They contended that the existence of a decaying snail in the sealed bottle constituted a clear case of negligence under the principle of res ipsa loquitur—the negligence was so obvious that it spoke for itself.
• Finally, the appellants argued that the narrow exclusions under the general responsibility principles were unduly restrictive and irrelevant in this case.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents denied the appellant’s claims, claiming that her injuries were overstated and principally caused by pre-existing medical issues, not the supposed presence of a snail. They argued that the accusations lacked sufficient evidence to support a negligence claim. As a result, the respondents maintained that the case was insufficient to sustain legal action.

DECISION

The House of Lords rendered the momentous decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson on May 26, 1932, with a 3:2 majority. Lord Atkin delivered the majority decision, supported by Lord Macmillan and Lord Thankerton, with Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissenting. This case is regarded as a cornerstone of modern tort law, as it established both the theory of negligence and the concept of a duty of care.
The House of Lords ruled that the maker owed the consumer a duty of care even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship. Lord Atkin introduced the neighbor concept, which emphasizes that individuals must take reasonable precautions to avoid acts or omissions that could potentially damage others. He defined a “neighbor” as someone who is “closely and directly affected” by one’s conduct, to the point where they should be considered while acting.

Lord Atkin relied on previous decisions, particularly Le Lievre v. Gould (1893), to emphasize that closeness in the duty of care does not have to be physical and can also include relationships of reasonable foreseeability. He emphasized that the respondent, as a manufacturer of food and drink goods for public consumption, had a responsibility to assure their safety. Lord Macmillan went on to say that the duty of care applied to every consumer who the producer could reasonably anticipate eating their products. He emphasized that the potential of injury in this situation was not remote enough to preclude the maker from anticipating it

The Court’s decision emphasized the need to have an adequate inspection mechanism in place during the production process, as well as taking reasonable safeguards to protect customers. Using the res ipsa loquitur concept, the Court determined that the existence of a decaying snail in a sealed bottle demonstrated negligence. Finally, the court ruled that manufacturers might be held accountable for negligence if they failed to fulfil their duty of care, establishing a precedent that continues to affect tort law around the world.

ANALYSIS

The Donoghue v. Stevenson case of 1932 is a seminal decision in negligence law, notably in establishing the duty of care that manufacturers owe to consumers. The House of Lords concluded that a manufacturer might be held accountable for the harm caused by a flaw in their product, even if there was no direct contractual link. The case established the neighbor concept, which argues that a party must take reasonable precautions to prevent causing harm to others who may be adversely affected by their activities.
Lord Atkin’s decision enhanced liability by emphasizing that producers have a responsibility to individuals who use their products. The court also used the res ipsa loquitur concept, which presumes negligence when an accident, such as discovering a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer, indicates a manufacturing flaw.

The ruling altered product liability law, paving the way for more comprehensive consumer protection and providing a framework in which producers are held liable for the safety of their products. The case remains a cornerstone of negligence and product liability law, ensuring that manufacturers are held accountable for ensuring their products do not damage consumers.