DONOGHUE V.

STEVENSON
Case Study Analysis

Submitted by:
SARA JAMAL
20-11277
Submitted to:
SIR ZAFAR SAHI

Forman Christian College (A chartered University)

Donoghue v. Stevenson, is a revolutionary case in the English Law which turned out to be the
origin for shaping the law of tort of negligence as well as developed the famous neighbour
principle by Lord Atkin. It is also known as the ‘Snail in the bottle case”. This case was basically
a Scottish dispute which was first taken to the Court of Session by the appellant and later to the
House of Lords in 1932.

Facts

The dispute raised between Donoghue who was the consumer and Stevenson who was the
manufacturer in Scotland in 1928. Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger-beer which was
purchased for her by her friend Minchella from a cafe in Paisley. Upon consuming a glass of the
ginger-beer it was later discovered that the bottle contained a decomposing snail. Since, the
bottle was opaque there was no way of figuring it out. As a result of the disgusting sight and
already consumed ginger-beer which had impurities, Ms Donoghue had to suffer from shock and
severe gasro-enteritis. Due to this unusual event which Ms Donoghue went through, she took
legal action against Mr. Stevenson as she claimed that the ginger-beer was bottled and labeled by
him with a label bearing his name, moreover, the bottle was sealed with a metal cap by the
manufacturer.

Ms. Donoghue claimed that it was the duty of the manufacturer to ensure that the bottle was free
of impurities and he should have a proper system of working his business. As the manufacturer
failed to fulfill his duties as a consequence, Ms Donoghue took a legal action and took the case
to the Court of Sessions to seek her damages of worth £500

Negligence

Negligence is a tort. Whenever a situation occurs due to which a person is injured or his property
is damaged as a result of the ‘carelessness’ of some other person, it qualifies as negligence. At
times it gets very difficult to identify the negligence in the law as the elements of negligence may
vary from case to case and many facts have to be legally analyzed.

If the plaintiff faces any injury or loss of property as a consequence of the negligence of the
respondent, he can take a legal/civil action against the respondent. This case provided with the
basis to recognize negligence as a law of tort. As a result of the judgements provided by Lord
Atkin, the plaintiff can still take a legal action against the manufacturer even if there is no
contractual arrangement between them. Since, Donoghue did not purchase the drink herself, she
had no contractual arrangement with Stevenson, but since she had to face the damages because
of negligence of Stevenson, she had a right to take a legal action against him.

Moreover, for a claim to succeed as a negligence act in the eyes of law, the pursuer must prove
that the defendant owed a duty of care towards him and he has breached that duty. In addition to
this, the damage faced by the pursuer was due to that breach of duty.

Lord Atkin at the end of his judgement referred to a case which could be linked here. He talked
about the case of Bates v. Batey, where the plaintiff was injured due to bursting of ginger beer
bottle which he bought from the shop keeper who had obtained the bottle from the
manufacturers. The manufacturers had bought the bottle from its maker. It was concluded instead
of the ginger beer being dangerous it was the bottle which was defected and caused this incident
to happen. There was still a liability on the manufacturers to take reasonable care through which
they could have discovered the defect. Here, the negligence of the manufacturers resulted in an
injury of the plaintiff. Similarly, in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson the manufactured
neglected his duty of care. It was his duty to take care that the consumer should not be injured
internally by poison or any other noxious thing, such as the decomposed snail.

Another case Dixon v. Bell concludes a judgement that the duty of care lies with the defendant
and not with the plaintiff. In this case the defendant had left a loaded gun at his lodgings and sent
his servant, a girl aged about thirteen or fourteen, for the gun, asking the landlord to remove the
priming and give it her. The landlord did not remove the priming and gave it to the girl, who
later levelled it at the plaintiff’s small son, drew the trigger and injured the boy. According to
Lord Atkin’s judgement, it was also an act of negligence as the defendant had a duty to take care
but he negligently entrusted the young girl with the gun and due to his breach of duty the
plaintiff’s small son was injured.

Duty of Care and Breach of duty

Duty of Care basically undergoes certain aspects which includes foreseeability, proximity, just
and reasonable as well as public policy. It emphasizes on the fact that one person has a duty and
obligation towards another. Duty of care and breach of duty goes hand in hand. The duty would
be breached only if any duty of care exists. In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin
was of the view that the manufacturer had a duty towards the consumer to be careful. In order to
support his claim he further linked it to several previously decided cases which were similar to
the current case. Such as the case of George v. Skivington, where the plaintiff Joseph George
bought a bottle of hairwash which was to be used by his wife, plaintiff Emma George from the
defendant Skivington who made the hairwash himself. This case held the defendant liable for
damage and injury of plaintiff even though a third person was present between the plaintiff and
the defendant, this is because he neglected the duty of care towards his consumer by selling the
hairwash which was prepared using chemicals that were unfit for use.

The judgement that the manufacturer had a duty towards the consumer to be careful was further
supported through the case of Hawkins v. Smith. In this case an employ of the dock company
was injured due to a defective sack. The sack was bought by the consignees from the defendant.
Although the defendant didn’t know for what purpose would the sack be used and by whom the
sack would be used, still they had a duty of due care towards their consumers as a result of which
they were held liable for their negligence.

Another case was the case of Elliot v Hall, in this case the defendants who were the colliery
owners delivered the coals to the plaintiff’s employers in a truck which had a defective
condition. The truck was hired by the defendants from a wagon company. As the plaintiff was
injured while unloading the coal due to the defective condition of the truck, the defendants
breached the duty of care which was to be followed. Although a third party is involved between
but still it was their duty to take reasonable precautionary measures to ensure that the truck was
in right condition and it won’t possibly cause any damage to another person.

Lord Atkin further to hold up his argument gave the example of Oliver v. Saddler case. In this
case stevedores were employed to unload a cargo of maize in bags. The cargo was raised to the
ship’s deck by their own men while using the rope slings which were provided by them. As the
slings were not fit to use the plaintiff had to go through an injury. This case gave rise to the claim
that there was a duty owed by the stevedore company to the porters to check that the slings were
fit for use. They should have considered the fact that even their slight carelessness can cause a
damage to the user. This case was as similar to the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson as in both the
cases the plaintiff’s had no opportunity of independent examination.

Lastly, according to the Lord Atkin’s judgement if we look at the cases like Langridge v. Levy,
Winterbottom v Wright and Longmeid v. Holliday, in all these cases the defendants breached a
duty of contract according to which the goods provided were safe to use and were free of any
defect. The plaintiffs had to suffer from injuries because in all these cases the defendant’s did not
consider the reasonable care which was necessary to ensure the security of the plaintiffs as well
as the warranty of the goods sold.

The above mentioned cases concludes the argument of Lord Atkin that there is a direct
relationship between the supplier and the user even if the thing which is causing a damage is not
defendant’s occupation, possession or even their personal property. The supplier ‘must’ look
upon his duty to take care towards his intended user. The defendant would be held liable even if
he had no such intentions of doing fraud or his actions were not intended to cause a damage to
the plaintiff just because he is neglecting the reasonable care which has to be followed.

Neighbour Principle

Neighbour principle is a very famous principle of English Law which states that an individual
must take precautions and reasonable care to avoid the acts and omissions that he can sensibly
foresee can cause damage to the neighbours. In the light of this, Lord Atkin’s judgements talked
about how the manufacturer had a duty of care towards the consumer even if they had no
contractual relation.

He pointed out at the rule that you have to love your neighbour and upon being questioned that
who are the neighbours? He provided a restricted reply which stated that “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”. He further linked his judgements with precedent cases to prove his point. According
to Lord Esher’s judgements on Heaven v. Pender “Under certain circumstances, one man may
owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If one man is near to
another, or is near to the property of another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may
cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure his property”. This supported the claim that
no contractual relation was necessary by law to prove the duty of care upon the defendant
towards the pursuer. Furthermore, A.L Smith L.J said that the decision of Heaven v. Pender was
founded upon the principle that “A duty to take due care did arise when the person or property of
one was in such proximity to the person or property of another that, if due care was not taken,
damage might be done by the one to the other."

Keeping in view the above mentioned judgements, Ms Donoghue happened to be a ‘neighbour’

Conclusion

The case concluded that in both English and Scots law “When a manufacturer of a product sells
a product in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the
form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with
the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products
will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take
that reasonable care.” This means that the manufacturer of the ginger beer while selling his
product had a duty of due care towards Ms. Donoghue and he must have taken reasonable care in
the preparation of the product to ensure that his product won’t cause any injury to the life to the
ultimate consumer.