1

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Facts of the case
In the eve 26 August 1928, Donoghue visited Wellmeadow Caf with a friend. The said friend
who was with Donoghue, ordered a pear and ice for herself, and ordered ice-cream and ginger
beer for Donoghue. Owner of the caf, Mr. Minchella brought over a glass tumbler of icecream and ginger beer with a brown and opaque bottle labelled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane,
Paisley". The bottle being made of opaque brown glass, Donoghue had no reason to suspect
that the bottle contained anything suspicious. Donoghue drank some of the ice-cream and beer
float. While pouring remainder of the contents of bottle a decomposed snail also came out of
the bottle. In consequence of the aforementioned incident, Donoghue was diagnosed with
gastroenteritis and shock after being admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
Plaintiffs arguments: Donoghue claimed that Stevenson had a duty of care and there was
breach of duty since the bottle contained a decomposed snail. And this breach of duty was
caused to have Donoghues illness. Therefore, Donoghue asked for the compensation from the
manufacturer.
Defendants arguments: Stevenson denied the claims of having snail found in his beer bottle
and the illness suffered by Donoghue was due to her own conditions rather than it being caused
by the consumption of the beer. He further pleaded by stating: (1) that the claim had no legal
basis, (2) that the facts could not be substantiated, (3) that he had not caused Donoghue any
injury and (4) that the claimed amount was excessive.
Judgement: The judgement was delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932. The judgement stated that
Stevenson is supposed to be responsible for the well-being of individuals who consume his
products. Stevenson had died before the judgement was delivered and Donoghue was
compensated amount of damages from Stevensons estate.
Principle of Law dealt in the case
Neighbour principle: Developed by Lord Atkin, the principle states that one must take
reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure
one's neighbour. A neighbour was identified as someone who was so closely and directly
affected by the act that one ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when
directing one's mind to the acts or omissions in question.
The neighbour principle therefore provides the claims in situations of negligence fo affected
parties by identifying the set of people to whom duty maybe owed. The principle is that one
must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely
to injure one's neighbour. A neighbour was identified as someone who was so closely and
directly affected by the act that one ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected
when directing one's mind to the acts or omissions in question. Neighbours principle isnt
supposed to provide support for the unlimited claims, it is only supposed to owe duty of care
to those who are close enough to be affected by the situation.

UTSAV VADGAMA|IPM2014106|SECTION B
MERCANTILE LAW AND COMPANY LAW ASSIGNMENT 1

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Principle of negligence: Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent
person would exercise in like circumstances. It deals with consequences arising by carelessness
rather than intentional harm.
In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, there is an act of negligence by Stevenson as he wasnt
able to make sure that the bottle contained no foreign elements.
Duty of care: According to Lord Atkins 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. Duty of care was owed by Stevenson to Donoghue which
he failed to provide thus, there was breach of duty by Stevenson.
Impact of the case on business
The case dealt with the principle of neighbour, principle of negligence and duty of care. The
circumstances of the case were not remarkable in itself but the decision was. The decision made
in the case made it precedent for the many such cases to come in the area of consumer welfare.
Since the 1932 decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson, manufacturers have had to meet a high
standard of care in order to prevent injury to consumers who use their products. To meet that
standard, manufacturers have to make sure that 1) the design of the product is free from harmful
defects; 2) the product is properly manufactured; 3) the consumer is informed about how to use
the product safely; and 4) the consumer is warned of risks associated with using the product.
Therefore, high standards for manufacturers were set and if they arent met, consumers are
protected under Consumer protection act, which safeguards them against such negligence.
Further Developments
The neighbour principle remains very crucial in duty, in the subsequent years the courts have
developed more complex tests to determine negligence and tort. These tests contain key
element of foreseeability, have attempted to reflect more accurately some of the other factors
inherent in establishing duty. The Anns Two-stage test is derived from neighbours principle.
The two stages being, proximity based on foreseeability of harm and considering of policy
factors. Difficulties arising out of The Anns Two-stage test led to development of The Caparo
Three-part Test. The three stages being, foreseeability, proximity and for imposing a duty to
be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances.
Similar Cases
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963): Hedly Byrne, an advertising firm wanted assurance that they
could provide credit to a company called Eazipower. The financial stability was assured by
Eazipowers bank, the defendants. Soon after giving credit, the Eazipower defaulted and the
claimants were liable for Eazipowers debts.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970): Some young offenders were doing some
supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal regime. One night the Borstal
officers retired for the evening leaving the boys unsupervised. Seven of them escaped and
stole a boat which collided with a Yacht owned by the claimant.
UTSAV VADGAMA|IPM2014106|SECTION B
MERCANTILE LAW AND COMPANY LAW ASSIGNMENT 1