Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Mrs Donoghue found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer, bought by her friend. She suffered illness and successfully sued the manufacturer despite not having directly purchased the product herself. This case laid down the neighbour principle.

On 26 August 1928, Mrs. Mary M’Alister or Donoghue visited the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley with a friend. Her friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by David Stevenson, to accompany Mrs. Donoghue’s ice cream. The ginger beer was served in an opaque bottle, preventing visual inspection of its contents. After consuming part of the drink, the decomposed remains of a snail were discovered in the bottle. Mrs. Donoghue subsequently suffered from shock and severe gastroenteritis.​

Mrs. Donoghue initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Stevenson, seeking £500 in damages. She alleged that Mr. Stevenson owed a duty of care to consumers to ensure his products were free from defects that could cause harm.​

The case progressed to the House of Lords, where, on 26 May 1932, a majority held that a manufacturer of products intended for consumer use has a legal duty to ensure those products are free from defects that could foreseeably cause harm to consumers. This duty arises when the products are sold in a form that prevents intermediate examination, such as sealed or opaque containers.​

Lord Atkin articulated the seminal ‘neighbour principle’, stating:​

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”

He further defined ‘neighbour’ as:

“Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected.”

This principle established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products, even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship.​

Lord Macmillan supported this view, emphasising the adaptability of the law:​

“The categories of negligence are never closed.”

In contrast, Lord Buckmaster dissented, expressing concern about extending liability in negligence without clear precedent:​

“The law cannot be changed merely to meet the exigencies of a hard case.”

This decision in Donoghue v Stevenson laid the foundation for the modern law of negligence, establishing the principles of duty of care and foreseeability that continue to underpin negligence claims today.

Ratio decidendi:

Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers when supplying products that reach consumers without reasonable opportunity for intermediate inspection. Manufacturers must take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.

Obiter dicta:

Obiter dicta in Donoghue v Stevenson include Lord Macmillan’s comment, “The categories of negligence are never closed,” highlighting the flexibility and evolving nature of negligence law beyond the specific facts of the case.

Source: Scottish Law Reports

Image: Annette Meyer from Pixabay