Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)

Facts

• On August 26, 1928, Mrs. Donoghue's friend purchased a ginger beer for her at the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland.
• The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle, preventing visual inspection of its contents.
• After Mrs. Donoghue consumed some of the beverage, she discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle.
• Mrs. Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result.
• She did not purchase the drink herself and thus did not have a contractual relationship with either the café or the manufacturer, David Stevenson.
• Due to lack of privity of contract, Mrs. Donoghue could not bring a claim for breach of warranty and instead sued Stevenson for negligence, seeking to establish that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even where no contract exists.

Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its product in the absence of a contractual relationship.
2. Whether negligence should be recognized as an independent tort distinct from contract law.
3. Whether the legal framework should move beyond established contractual or specific tort duties to recognize a broader principle of duty of care.
4. How the principle of proximity and foreseeability applies to situations involving harm to consumers of manufactured products.

Decision

• The House of Lords, by a 3-2 majority, found in favor of Mrs. Donoghue.
• Lord Atkin, delivering the leading judgment, held that negligence constitutes a distinct and independent tort.
• It was established that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, regardless of the existence of a contractual relationship.
• The "neighbour principle" was formulated, requiring individuals to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to those closely and directly affected by their actions or omissions.
• This decision marked a departure from the prior emphasis on privity of contract, creating a general duty of care in negligence cases.

Legal Principles

• The general duty of care in negligence is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by one's acts that they ought reasonably to be contemplated as affected.
• Negligence is a separate tort and does not rely on contractual relationships for its existence or application.
• The "neighbour principle" expands the scope of liability beyond strict contractual or category-based duties, emphasizing foreseeability and proximity.
• Liability of manufacturers extends through the supply chain to the ultimate consumer, imposing an obligation to ensure products do not cause foreseeable harm.
• Subsequent cases have refined the duty of care by introducing additional requirements, such as fairness, justice, reasonableness, and limiting liability for pure omissions or economic loss except in specific circumstances.

Conclusion

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) established the foundational duty of care in negligence, introducing the "neighbour principle" and enabling claimants to seek redress against manufacturers even without contract. This landmark case laid the groundwork for modern negligence and product liability law, with its principles continually applied and refined in later jurisprudence.