Negligence Case Notes
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 – Snail in the Bottle Case
Parties
o Pursuer – Donoghue
o Defendant – Stevenson
Facts
On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from
Wellmeadow Café [1] 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.
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.
Issues in Donoghue v Stevenson
The question for the HoL was if the manufacturer owed Mrs Donoghue a
duty of care in the absence of contractual relations contrary to established
case law.[2] Donoghue was effectively a test case to determine if she had
a cause of action, not if she was owed compensation for any damages
suffered.
The law of negligence at the time was very narrow and was invoked only if
there was some established contractual relationship. An earlier case [3],
involving two children and floating mice, held that:
Absent a contract, a manufacturer owed no duty of care to a
consumer when putting a product on the market except:
1. If the manufacturer was aware that the product was
dangerous because of a defect and it was concealed from the
consumer (i.e., fraud); [4] or
2. The product was danger per se and failed to warn the
consumer of this. [5]
Unlike Mullen, which stopped at the Court of Session, Mrs Donoghue took
her case to the HoL.
Outcome
The HoL found for Mrs Donoghue with the leading judgment delivered by
Lord Atkin in a 3-2 majority with Buckmaster L and Tomlin L dissenting.
The ratio decidendi of the case is not straightforward. Indeed, it could be
interpreted as narrow as to establish a duty not to sell opaque bottles of
, ginger-beer, containing the decomposed remains of a dead snail, to
Scottish widows. [6]
Read more broadly, the decision has several components: first, negligence
is distinct and separate in tort; second, there does not need to be a
contractual relationship for a duty to be established; third, manufacturers
owe a duty to the consumers who they intend to use their product. [7]
However, the primary outcome of Donoghue, and what it is best known
for, is the further development of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin,
who said: [8]
The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must
not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my
neighbour? receives a restricted reply. 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 reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are
called in question.
Mrs Donoghue had proved her averments that she had a cause of action
in law.
Judgements/ comments
‘The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must
not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my
neighbour? receives a restricted reply. 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 reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are
called in question.’
Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
‘The categories of negligence are never closed. The cardinal principle of
liability is that the party complained of should owe to the party
complaining a duty to take care…where there is room for diversity of
view, it is in determining what circumstances will establish such a
relationship between the parties as to give rise, on the one side, to a duty
to take care, and on the other side to a right have care taken.’
Lord Macmillan in Donoghue
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 – House of Lords
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 – Snail in the Bottle Case
Parties
o Pursuer – Donoghue
o Defendant – Stevenson
Facts
On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from
Wellmeadow Café [1] 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.
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.
Issues in Donoghue v Stevenson
The question for the HoL was if the manufacturer owed Mrs Donoghue a
duty of care in the absence of contractual relations contrary to established
case law.[2] Donoghue was effectively a test case to determine if she had
a cause of action, not if she was owed compensation for any damages
suffered.
The law of negligence at the time was very narrow and was invoked only if
there was some established contractual relationship. An earlier case [3],
involving two children and floating mice, held that:
Absent a contract, a manufacturer owed no duty of care to a
consumer when putting a product on the market except:
1. If the manufacturer was aware that the product was
dangerous because of a defect and it was concealed from the
consumer (i.e., fraud); [4] or
2. The product was danger per se and failed to warn the
consumer of this. [5]
Unlike Mullen, which stopped at the Court of Session, Mrs Donoghue took
her case to the HoL.
Outcome
The HoL found for Mrs Donoghue with the leading judgment delivered by
Lord Atkin in a 3-2 majority with Buckmaster L and Tomlin L dissenting.
The ratio decidendi of the case is not straightforward. Indeed, it could be
interpreted as narrow as to establish a duty not to sell opaque bottles of
, ginger-beer, containing the decomposed remains of a dead snail, to
Scottish widows. [6]
Read more broadly, the decision has several components: first, negligence
is distinct and separate in tort; second, there does not need to be a
contractual relationship for a duty to be established; third, manufacturers
owe a duty to the consumers who they intend to use their product. [7]
However, the primary outcome of Donoghue, and what it is best known
for, is the further development of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin,
who said: [8]
The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must
not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my
neighbour? receives a restricted reply. 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 reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are
called in question.
Mrs Donoghue had proved her averments that she had a cause of action
in law.
Judgements/ comments
‘The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must
not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my
neighbour? receives a restricted reply. 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 reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so
affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are
called in question.’
Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
‘The categories of negligence are never closed. The cardinal principle of
liability is that the party complained of should owe to the party
complaining a duty to take care…where there is room for diversity of
view, it is in determining what circumstances will establish such a
relationship between the parties as to give rise, on the one side, to a duty
to take care, and on the other side to a right have care taken.’
Lord Macmillan in Donoghue
Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 – House of Lords
