Case summary:

“Snail in the bottle case” is resulted in foundation of new principles in torts. This case,
Donoghue Vs Stevenson, was filed basing on a contractual breach allegation by the petitioner.
This case was an appeal answered by the five judge bench, one dissenting. In this case the
appellant/petitioner sued the respondent for damages, who was responsible for appellant’s
sufferance. Petitioner has consumed a negligently manufactured ginger beer containing
decomposed snail remains, which she did not purchase, but her friend purchased for her and
suffered health issues and loss. Thus she proceeded against the seller of beer-bottle and
manufacturer of such beer. The initial court allowed the claim of plaintiff, but the upper court has
reversed the judgment of lower court. Hence the plaintiff filed an appeal on interlocutory
application before the House of Lords. The court did not consider the plea against seller,
considering that, he is a mere seller, he does not have an option to examine the contents of bottle,
also, it is definite that, seller do not hold an intension of selling such nor an idea that, such may
contain a dangerous substance in it. But, the claim against the manufacturer was went on trial,
not as a contractual breach, but as a tortuous liability. The defendant contended that, there is no
contractual relation between petitioner and the beer company. This was answered by the court
evolving “liability towards the third party/Ultimate consumer” Negligence as a new tort liability
in the field of manufacturing of goods, duty of care towards the ultimate consumer and liability
in case of failure of the same, neighbor’s principle was laid down from the decision of the court
in this case. If loss or damage caused in violation of above principles, consequences must be
faced by the violator. So, in this case too, the court ordered the manufacturing company to pay
the damages for her sufferance along with court fee and costs incurred by her in defending her
suit. Thus, by applying the above principles the House went on saying the manufacture liable to
his ultimate consumer, whether there is direct nexus or not, fixing it as a landmark, for the
protection of consumer interests and creating a duty upon every manufacturer not to harm his
neighbors.
Analysis of Donoghue Vs Stevenson

Legal citation:

Donoghue (or McAlister) Vs Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords

Introduction:

A landmark judgment was delivered on 26th May, 1932 by Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord
Tomlin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan. This is a Scottish dispute, which was answered
by applying both the Scottish and English laws. However these laws are not clear about the
circumstances of this case, so the Lords also referred to the position of American Law in the
cases of similar circumstances. Finally it was decided under Common Law concept of
Negligence and duty of care.

Under English law, the concept of negligence and duty of care towards the party shall arise by
the contractual relation. If any damages suffered by the third party to the contract, was not
eligible to recover the same under this concept. They emphasize that, the relation must be
contractual but nor remote or a third party, we can observe the strong roots of this concept in the
words of their Lords, while answering on negligence towards the third party that “If we take one
step why not a fifty and more”. This was affirmed in many English cases. But, this is a case
where the manufacture owes a duty to the ultimate consumer, despite whether he is direct
purchaser from the manufacturer or not. Thus this case led to widening up the concept to the
ultimate liability of manufacturer to the consumer, how far might be the relation.

II

In this case the appellant/petitioner sued the respondent for damages, who was responsible for
appellant’s sufferance. The facts of this case are presented below.

Facts:
 1. The respondent in this case is a manufacturer of different kinds of aerated waters, which
also includes ginger beer.
2. On August 26 1928, Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer from a cafe called
Well meadow Café which is located in Paisley. One of such Ginger beer was purchased
by the friend of the appellant for giving it to the appellant.
3. Some of which was consumed by the appellant and while serving the remaining drink
into a tumble they found a decomposed remains of a snail which floated out of the beer
bottle.
4. The appellant failed to notice it before because of the thickness of the ginger beer bottle
as it is made up of dark opaque glass. And the appellant has no reason to suspect neither
any of such circumstances nor the presence of such creature.
5. The sudden notice of such led the appellant suffer a shock and, as she had already
consumed some of it she has to suffer a severe gastric pain.
6. So the allegation of the appellant is that as the respondent negligently acted, without
taking proper care while manufacturing such, he is responsible for the sufferance of
appellant.
7. However this was objected as an unreasonable ground and the claims made in the case
are not sufficient to support the summons in the case. And further contended that, there is
no contractual relation between the respondent and the petitioner/appellant.
8. This was initially allowed but the second division bench recalled the petition and
dismissed it stating there is no cause of action.
9. Hence, the appeal was preferred. Even in the appeal the same question was raised, but the
reply was convincing as it could successfully support the case of the appellant, the
petition was allowed, after hearing on both sides, it was decided in favour of the
appellant.

III

Procedural History:

The case was, firstly filed before the country trail court held by Lord Ordinary, as an
interlocutory and he allowed the claim for presentation of evidence of damages and negligence
on part of the manufacturer.
But this was raised before a division bench of sessions court, which held that the interlocutory
application cannot be maintainable, stating that there is no case for the petitioner. By a majority
IA was recalled and dismissed on 10th December 1931.

This gave rise to the appeal before the House of Lords, which, after examining the theories of
Jurisprudence in this regard, Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan; Lord
Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissenting allowed the claim of the appellant. While doing the
same, they have approved the judgment of George Vs Skivington,1and considered the ratio of
Brett M.R. in Heaven Vs Pender2 , also overruled its previous decisions in cases of Mullen
Vs. Barr and Co.,Ltd, and M’Gowan Vs Barr & Co.,Ltd, 3. On May 26, 1932 the in the Court
of Sessions, the second division bench has reversed the sessions order, the order of first
interlocutor was restored. Ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant the costs of the action
in the Inner House and also the costs incurred by her in respect of the appeal to this House,
such last mentioned costs.

IV

This was raised as a contractual grievance, but as it is quoted by one of the lords, as a
contractual liability can turn as tortuous liability, and the branches of law shall be expanded
according to emerging needs and trends of the society, this case was resolved by application of
a theory of negligence under torts. Thus the issues raised and considered are presented below.

Issues raised and identified: (courts answer presented in the issue)

1. Are the contents made by the petitioner in her pleadings, true, do they disclose a
cause of action?

Sessions judge held that, the averments in Mrs. Donoghue pleadings are true and there is a cause
of action, and called for production of evidence. The division bench of sessions court recalled the
petition and held there is no cause of action, dismissed the application. Finally, House of Lords
held the averments were true, there exists a cause of action, and upheld sessions judge decision.

1
(1869) L. R. 5 Ex. 1
2
(1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503, 509-11
3
1929 S.C.461
 2. Whether the defendant failed in taking precautions while manufacturing beer
(bottling, labeling, sealing) or whether there is a breach of duty on part of
defendant?

Sessions judge allowed this contention and asked for the proof of breach of the duty to take
reasonable care on part of the defendant, but the division bench did not considered this issue and
dismissed the application stating there is no breach of duty as there is no cause of action at all.
HL held that, there is a duty on manufacturer to take care of the product defects and not to act
negligently while doing so.

3. Whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff, in this case who is a third party to the
contract of sale?

This was answered by the House of Lords in an elaborative way, holding the defendant liable for
the damages suffered by the plaintiff, a third party in the case, quoting the liability of a
manufacturer towards the ultimate consumer.

Reasoning (Dictum – Courts reasoning)

1. Do the averments made by the pursuer in her pleading, if true, disclose a cause of
action?

Yes, the contents made in her pleading were true, and there is a cause of action. When a
manufacturer releases an article into market, intended for human consumption in a form and if it
precludes the potential of an examination of such by the retailer or consumer, he is liable to the
consumer for not taking reasonable care to see that the article is not injurious to health. In the
circumstances of this case the respondent owed a duty to the appellant to take care that the
ginger-beer which he manufactured, bottled, labeled and sealed (the circumstance in which the
beer was released in to the market, made impossible for the consumer to examine into the subject
in bottles), he invited her to buy it, failed in providing bottle contained nothing which would
cause her injury. Thus the reason given by the Lords is clear that, the moment appellant found a
decomposed snail in the ginger beer she has drunk, and the shock she has suffered gave rise to a
cause of action against the manufacturer, who owes a duty towards his consumers to take proper
care while manufacturing such.

2. Whether the defendant failed in taking precautions while manufacturing beer

(bottling, labeling, sealing) or whether there is a breach of duty on part of
defendant?

Yes. The defendant owes a duty towards his ultimate consumer to take care of the products they
are manufacturing and selling it into the public. As the damage suffered by the appellant is true
and is not disputed, so it is clear that, he owes a duty and failed in fulfilling it which is a breach
of his duty. The justices have seen the concept from the existing contexts of negligence theories.
Lords considered that, “when any manufacturer releases an article into market for circulation
which is meant for human and in a form which precludes the possibility of an examination of the
article by the retailer or the consumer, he is liable to the consumer for not taking reasonable care
to see that the article is not injurious to health. While considering this they relied upon the on the
general principle that in an ordinary case a manufacturer is under no duty to any one with whom
he is not in any contractual relation. To this rule there are two well known exceptions: (1.) where
the article is dangerous per se, and (2.) where the article is dangerous to the knowledge of the
manufacturer.” In the circumstances of this case the respondent owed a duty to the appellant to
take care that the ginger-beer , as discussed in the second issue above.

3. Whether defendant is liable to the plaintiff, in this case who is a third party to the
contract of sale?

Yes. The manufacturer was liable to the ultimate consumer, even though he/she is a third party.
Lord MC Mellon reasoned that, to his version over this situation, or to any other case of similar
situation, duty meant, as a liability towards whom such manufacturer intends to consume his
products. There is no doubt that he manufactures his commodities for human consumption. And
obviously intends and contemplates that they shall be consumed. The very fact itself constitutes a
reason of his duty towards the ultimate consumer as it keeps them on manufacturer and
consumer relationship line. And that relationship which he assumes and desires for his own ends
imposes upon him a duty to take care to avoid injuring them. As the jurisprudence speaks up,
duties correlative is liability, so, when there is a breach of duty, the liability shows up.
VI

Evaluation

Precedents are said to be land marks because they are going to set an ideal mark in the fallowing
or upcoming case lists with similar line of facts. So they must be fallowed as judged as it is by
the lower and equal courts. However, it might be differed or can be reversed by higher or by the
same court. But this was not subjected to any of the above mentioned situations, because of its
uniqueness and the impact it has left on the side of manufacture liability towards the consumer.
However, every aspect can be seen through different legal sides of possible nature, its
effectiveness can be calculated and be subjected to research as well as criticism. Proceeding to
evaluation of the facts stated, issues settled and answered, reasons stated off by the judges and
the decision in Donoghue Vs. Stevenson, it’s a notable point that, this rule is still in prevalence.
Regarding the issues, if the first issue was answered, the second issue too will get a solution. The
reasons given by the lords in answering those issues were unobjectionable, and the cases referred
though did not speak up clearly about the same causes, they made it clear to the bench that, there
is a huge need of a way out for protection of consumer interests and hence helped them in getting
it right.

Coming to the ‘liability to the third party’ this could be considered as a contractual liability in a
way, even though there is no express contract between the manufacture and the ultimate
consumer, or can be made as a rule of law, that, a manufacturer when releases some product into
the market which he intends it to be consumed by the people, who all fall under the category of
users/consumers will have to get a right against such manufacturer regarding the product to take
all necessary care and caution of possible dangers- a duty of care principle.

Secondly, the neighbours principle, as it was suggested by lord Atkin, ‘one should not cause
injury to his neighbour’, the neighbor here, in the context of this case is the ultimate consumer.
Which meant, one should not produce an article or good which injures the neighborhood or
society This is what is needed actually, and it was held in the same way by the lords.

Thirdly, it is well stated from the facts, and issues that, negligence need not be a cause arising
out from a contractual liability, it can also be there as a tortuous liability. The manufacture who
have to take care while manufacturing it negligently acted upon causing injury to the ultimate
user. The person who suffered physical or any other loss, which is result of act or omission of the
opposite person, itself is made actionable.

Suggestions and conclusion

In this case, the House of Lords mainly dealt on the issue of liability of the manufacturer towards
the consumer, but especially, when they are produce for the human consumption, which is
dangerous in nature or effects human health. I wonder how it expressly mentioned “for human
consumption” which impliedly excluding other creatures. My suggestion towards this judgment
is that, yes it is very true, and agreed that, only human can do the purchase, but such may be used
for animals or birds needs, which in case suffers any loss, should also be answered. So hopefully,
the application of this rule of negligence may be expanded according to the needs.

One could say from the above case analysis is that, while propounding a new proposition of law,
every prevailing aspect (law or custom) has to be considered, every future problem to be
measured, every possibility of implementation to be counted, hence these measures as must and
should in every case dealing with a new situation. This was undoubtedly fallowed in this case. I
will conclude by quoting that, this is a once in life time judgment, which led to the evolution of
consumer protection provisions, liability to the third party, and tortuous liability in a different
prospect, so new case with similar situation!!, just go through this judgment, your case will get a
solution.