Donoghue V. Stevenson: Brief Facts

DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON Brief Facts Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the ‘snail in the bottle case’, is a significant case in Western law. On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from Wellmeadow Café in Paisley. She consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler. At this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and severe gastro-enteritis. She was unsuccessful at trial and appealed the decision to the House of Lords.

Issues 1. Whether the manufacturer was liable for the breach of his duty of care towards his consumer? (negligence) 2. Whether the plaintiff can directly sue the manufacturer, even if the bottle was purchased by her friend? (contractual liability and neighbour principle )

Rules The present case had the arguments and contentions based on the following rules and principles: 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. Duty of care. Secondly, the case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to the end consumers or users of their products. According to Lord Atkin’s ratio decendi, “a manufacturer of products, which he sells… to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him… owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care”. This precedent has evolved and now forms the basis of laws that protect consumers from contaminated or faulty goods. Neighbour principle. 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.”

Analysis

The case focuses on the foreseeability and a question whether a contractual liability arises but 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. Also it could be stated that the plaintiff cannot bring any suit against the defendant as she was not a party to the contract and was the third person. Hence applying the rules of privity

of contract, only the parties to the contract are entitled to sue as no rights are conferred on the third party for the same. The rule of negligence when applied to the facts of the case, the manufacturer could be held liable as the duty of care extends to the final consumer. Hence, it is the duty to provide healthy and unadultered products to the consumer. There exists a relationship of duty as between the maker and the consumer of the beer.’ 9 Thus, the doctrine of neglignce is based on both, law and morality. The impact of Donoghue on tort law cannot be understated; it was a watershed moment effectively establishing tort as separate from contract law. 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. Conclusion Manufacturers owe the final consumer of their product a duty of care (at least in the instance where the goods cannot be inspected between manufacturing and consumption). There need not be a contractual relationship, or privity, in order for the final consumer to sue in negligence. In my opinion the case was well decided as the manufacture was liable and he cannot exempt his liability clause until and unless he had taken some prior preventions and precautions. Also the principle of neighbour does give a right to all those who are directly injured or affected or suffered losses due to the negligent act of others and also to those who does not comes under the ambit of ‘parties of contract’ but are affected by the same negligent act. Hence the appeal made was successful and the plaintiff was awarded

a less amount of damages from the estate of the defendant as he died before the final verdict was announced.