The case of Donoghue v Stevenson

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON [1932] AC 562 [HOUSE OF LORDS]

In common law, a person can claim damages from another person where that other person owed the first person a duty of care and harm ed that person through their conduct in breach of that duty. It was generally held that a duty of care was only owed in a specific circumstance, such as where a contract existed between two parties or where a manufacturer was making inherently dangerous products or was acting fraudulently.

The case was an appeal from Scotland [England and Scotland] which have two different legal systems.

The case was decided by lord Atkin, Macmillian, Buekmatter, Thankerton and Tomlin

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, a shop assistant sought to recover from the respondent, an aerated water manufacturer, on the basis that he was negligent and out of such negligence she was injured and suffered from shock and severe Gastro Enteritic by presence of a snail in the bottle of a Ginger beer manufacturer by the respondent. The beer was ordered for the appellant in a shop by a friend of the appellant.

As a consequence of her having drunk part of the examined contents of the bottle it was alleged and she contracted a serious illness. The bottle was an opaque glass, the condition of its contents could be ascertained by inspection, it was closed with a metal cap and on the other side was a label bearing the name of the respondent

ISSUE

Whether the manufacturer of the article or drink is liable?

HELD

Appeal allowed, decision in a favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, therefore the manufacturer was liable

RATIO DECIDANT OF THE CASE

The manufacturer of the products owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer and that the absence of privity of contract between claimant and the defendant does not prelude liability of tort.

We agree with the statement by W. L Twining that…

“DONOGHUE V STEVENSON[1] case can be seen as a victory of a possible but weak technical case backed by non legal factors over a relatively strong technical case”

Thus DONOGHUE V STEVENSON case can be seen as a victory because

1. It is a case which establishes the concept of negligence known in the law of torts today. This notion introduces three aspects for it to be completed. Negligence consists in

• Duty of care

• Breach of duty

• damage

The above must be proven in order to prove negligence against a person

The famous rule introduced by Lord Atkins that ‘the rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes [in law] you must not injure your neighbour in order to make the case of victory possible. The lawyer s question, who is my neighbour?  [Emphasis added] receives restricted reply that…

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law is my neighbour?

The answer seems to be a person who is closely and directly affected by my act that I ought 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.

According to lord Alkin this is the principle used in the case of Heaven Vs Pender[2] by Brett M.R;

Inter alia that;

        

Under certain circumstances, one may own 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 lays upon him not to do that which may course personal injury to that other or injury to his property.

In that case, they are not concerned with breach of duty. But they are concerned with question as a matter of law in the circumstances alleged by the defendant to own any duty of pursues to take care….

In English law there must be and in some general conception of relations giving to the rise of a duty to care, of which particular cases found in the books are but instances the liability for negligence, whether your style in such or treat it as in other system as a species of “culpa” is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrong doing for which an offender must pay.

But Donoghue Vs Stevenson is week technical case backed by non legal factor over a relatively strong technical case because;

There was no contractual relationship between Donoghue and the drinks manufacturer or even the cafe owner as Donoghue had not ordered or pay for the drink herself. Although there was a contractual relationship between the cafe owner and Donoghue friend, the friend has been harmed by the ginger beer and the manufacturer had no fraudulently misrepresented it.

Per lord Buckmaster and Lord Timlin (who dissented), there can be no special duty attaching to the manufacturer of food apart from that implied by contract or that imposed by statute. If such a duty exists it seems to me it must cover the construction of every article and I can not see any reason why it should not apply to the construction of the house. If one step, why not fifty?

In the view of Lord Buckmaster the and Lord Timlin was that it was difficult to see how trade could be carried on if Lord Atkin’s principle was law;

Tomlin referred to the Versailles train coash in 1842 caused by a defective axle, nothing that, if Lord Atkin’s principle were to be law, every injured party would be permitted to sue the axle manufacturer in such a case.

Also Lord Atkin’s principle was more moral than legally. They derived his principle from Christian principle of loving your neighbour which can be found in James 2:8 and the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The case of Donoghue Vs Stevenson is the famous case in legal aspect because it is a source of torts law and establishment of negligence.

---

[1] [1932] AC 562 House of Lords.

[2] [1883] BABD 5O3.