Donoghue vs Stevenson [1932] AC 562 | Negligence, General Duty of Care, & Neighbour Principle

By

Snail in the Ginger the Paisley snail
The Paisley Snail 



The Paisley Snail | Donoghue vs Stevenson  [1932] AC 562 |
Duty of Care and Negligence


Link to original transcript of the case

Part 1 Case facts in brief 

  1. Mrs Donoghue visited a cafe with her friend and ordered some ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer
  2. She drank some of the ginger beer. She witnessed a decomposed snail flow out of the bottle as she poured more ginger beer into her tumbler
  3. Consequently, she suffered gastroenteritis and shock and was admitted to a hospital
  4. The bottled ginger beer was produced by David Stevenson, whose details mentioned on the bottle were noted by Mrs Donoghue's friend
  5. Mrs Donoghue sued Mr Stevenson for damages
Part 2 Legal aspects
 

Arguments by the plaintiff (Mrs Donoghue)

    • Duty of care owed by Mr Stevenson (ginger beer bottle manufacturer)
    • Breach of duty of care by Mr Stevenson

Arguments by the defendant (Mr Stevenson)

    • that he had not caused Donoghue any injury;
    • that the claimed amount was excessive.
    • that the claim had no legal basis;
    • that the facts could not be substantiated;

Legal consideration
    • Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer?
    • Did Stevenson (the ginger beer bottle manufacturer) owe a duty of care to Donoghue (the ultimate consumer)?


Legal significance of the case (IMPORTANT)
    • Landmark case in tort laws in Scots Delict law & English tort law by House of Lords
    • Laid foundations on the modern law of negligence and establishing general principles on the duty of care
    • Established a new type of liability in law that did not depend upon any previously recognized category of tortious claims
    • Shifted from strict liability based on direct physical contact to a fault-based system that only required injury as opposed to the earlier view. The older view was that liability for personal injury in tort depended on showing physical damage inflicted directly or indirectly
Legal principle by judiciary / Lord Atkin in this case (IMPORTANT)
    • Neighbour Principle by Lord Atkin
      • 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. (Source: Oxford University Press)
      • it further evolved into a 3 part test in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 
        (1) Was the risk of injury or harm to the claimant reasonably foreseeable?
        (2) Was there sufficient proximity between the parties?
        (3) Is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of care?         (Source)
  • Recent reference/citations made to this case in negligence/breach of duty case in India in The Managing Director, Kerala ... vs Deepti Singh . on 15 March, 2019

Legal background before the case was brought
    • Contract of Sale is the usual basis for claiming injuries resulting from a defective product between buyer and seller.
      In this case, the order was placed by Donoghue's friend who had a contractual relationship but didn't suffer injury, whereas Donoghue suffered but didn't have a contract relationship and therefore would have to file for damages for negligence

    • Legal liability could arise from an act of omission, however, the specific duty of care not the general duty of care or general liability arose, and that too an underlying contract was usually present

    • Product manufacturers only owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumers if
      • the dangerousness of a product was intentionally withheld from the consumer
      • the product was intrinsically dangerous
        Neither applies to the case of ginger beer as a product in the Donoghue vs Stevenson case



Details Facts of the case (Wikipedia)

    A. The ginger beer with a decomposed snail sets fear
  • Mrs. Donoghue ordered a Scotsman ice cream float (mix of ice cream + Ginger beer) at Wellmeadow cafe in Paisley, and was accompanied by her friend 
  • the cafe owner, Francis Minghella who brought ice cream and poured ginger beer from a brown, opaque bottle labelled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley"
  • Donoghue drank some of the ice cream float. Her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler when a decomposed snail flowed out of the bottle
  • She was admitted to the hospital (Glasgow Royal Infirmary) and subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. 
  • The ginger beer was manufactured by David Stevenson whose company produced ginger beer & lemonade, his details were on the beer bottle recorded by Donoghue's friend
    B. Donoghue files a case
  • She sought help from Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city councillor, whose firm acted for claimants in similar cases (Mullen vs AG Barr & Co Ltd) [More on the Mullen case later in this post)
  • He issued a write on Donoghue's behalf claiming damages £500 and £50 in costs, £35572 equivalent in 2021
  • 5  condescendences were filled as allegations by her containing that
    • Stevenson (the defendant) and the ginger beer manufacturer owed Duty of Care to Donoghue to ensure snails didn't enter ginger beer bottles
    • Breach of this duty of care by failing to provide an effective system to clean bottles
   C. Stevenson's reply to the allegations
  • He denied allegations with 4 main arguments
    • that the claim had no legal basis;
    • that the facts could not be substantiated;
    • that he had not caused Donoghue any injury;
    • that the claimed amount was excessive.



Postscript Notes:

BTW, what is a condescendence? You may ask.
Here is a glossary from a quick Googling.
"In Scotland, the written statement in an initial writ or summons which sets out the factual position and the legal grounds of a civil action. The condescendence should be formatted in numbered paragraphs. It forms the body of the writ or summons. It is positioned after the craves (in an initial writ) or conclusions (in a summons) and before the pleas-in-law"
[Source: Thomson Reuters Practical Law]

Relevant Reads
- https://www.survivelaw.com/post/donoghue-v-stevenson-1932-ac-562#:~:text=Holding%3B%20The%20House%20of%20Lords,directly%20affected%20by%20their%20actions.

Disclaimer: The posts are meant for educational and learning purposes only for anyone interested in learning and discussing law. Emphasis is on making sure the more important parts of the case and legal implications are presented accordingly.