Tort Law

Donoghue v. Stevenson

[1932] AC 562; [1932] All ER Rep. 1

Facts

• Mrs Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend.
• Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for her.
• The drink was manufactured by Stevenson and sold in a dark, opaque bottle.
• Because the bottle was opaque and sealed, its contents could not reasonably be inspected before consumption.
• Part of the ginger beer was poured into a glass and consumed by Mrs Donoghue.
• When the remaining contents were poured out, a decomposed snail allegedly emerged from the bottle.
• Mrs Donoghue claimed that the sight and contamination caused gastroenteritis and severe shock.
• She had no contract with the café because her friend had purchased the drink.
• She also had no contract with Stevenson, the manufacturer.
• Mrs Donoghue sued Stevenson in negligence.
• Stevenson argued that, without a contractual relationship, he owed her no legally recognised duty of care.

• Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer despite the absence of a contract.
• Whether the alleged injury was sufficiently foreseeable and closely connected to the manufacturer’s conduct.
• Whether Mrs Donoghue’s pleadings disclosed a legally valid negligence claim.

• A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that can reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure one’s “neighbour.”
• A legal neighbour is a person who is:
o closely and directly affected by the defendant’s conduct; and
o reasonably within the defendant’s contemplation when the conduct occurs.
• A manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer where:
o the product is intended to reach the consumer in substantially the same form;
o there is no reasonable opportunity for intermediate inspection; and
o careless manufacture may foreseeably cause injury.
• Negligence requires duty, breach, causation and damage.

• Stevenson manufactured a drink intended to be consumed by members of the public.
• The bottle was sealed and opaque, preventing the retailer or consumer from discovering contamination through ordinary inspection.
• Stevenson therefore controlled the final opportunity to ensure that the product was safe.
• It was reasonably foreseeable that contamination of a beverage could physically injure the person who consumed it.
• Mrs Donoghue was not a remote or accidental claimant. She was the exact kind of person for whom the product was manufactured.
• The lack of a contract did not remove the factual relationship between manufacturer and consumer.
• Lord Atkin reasoned that contractual boundaries should not allow a manufacturer to avoid responsibility for foreseeable personal injury caused by careless preparation.
• The House of Lords was deciding whether the pleaded facts could establish a duty, not whether the snail actually existed or whether Stevenson was factually negligent.
• Those matters still required proof at trial.

• The House of Lords held that Mrs Donoghue’s claim disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence.
• Stevenson owed a duty to take reasonable care in manufacturing a sealed product intended for ultimate consumption.
• The absence of a contract did not prevent the duty from arising.
• Mrs Donoghue’s appeal was allowed, and the matter could proceed to trial.
• The decision established the neighbour principle as a foundation for the modern law of negligence.
• It did not finally determine Stevenson’s liability because breach, causation and the alleged facts remained to be proved.