Case study: Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932
Relevance of this case
While the immediate effect of this case applied to the liability of manufacturers to those using or consuming their products, it has been used to more broadly extend the duty of care in negligence to people beyond those immediately affected by your operations. A test of reasonableness still applies, but the case set the grounds for a broader duty. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the neighbour principle’. This principle is critical for risk assessment, as it underscores the importance of identifying “who can be harmed” and putting reasonable steps in place to protect them.
Events on the day
On 26 August, 1928, May Donoghue met up with her friend in a café. Her friend brought herself and Ms Donoghue a drink. Ms Donoghue’s drink was ginger beer, provided in a dark brown bottle. The café owner poured half the bottle into a glass of ice cream, which Ms Donoghue consumed. Her friend then poured the remaining ginger beer into the glass for her, at which point a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle. Ms Donaghue felt ill, and was later diagnosed with gastroenteritis.
Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay
Legal reasoning
The initial judgement in the case was in favour of the manufacturer, Stevenson. Since her friend paid the café for the ginger beer, there was no contract between Stevenson and Ms Donoghue, so she could not sue for negligence.
However, on appeal, the House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to whoever consumed the drink, regardless of how many hands it passed through. Stevenson was unable to prove in court that he had demonstrated a duty of care, even though there remain doubts as to whether or not there ever was a snail in his ginger beer.
A quote from one of the judges, Lord Atkin, relates the duty to the Biblical imperative to love your neighbour:
“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. 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 – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably 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.”
Outcome
The result of the 1932 judgement was to send the case back to the Court of Session for further proceedings on the facts of the case (was there a snail or not?). However, Stevenson died, and his estate eventually settled out of court, for £200, worth around £14,000 today. The original claim had been for £500.
There is now a statue of May Donaghue and a commemorative plaque on the site of the café in Paisley, on the corner of Wellmeadow Street and Lady Lane.
References
The original case report: www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.pdf
More detailed information around the case: www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/resources/donoghue-v-stevenson
For comparison, see Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932) and Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) [external site].
More case studies are listed in Appendix 1 by theme or Appendix 1 by date.
See the full contents list for the book
You can use the Contact form to send me feedback. If you’d like to receive an email when I add or update a chapter, please subscribe to my ‘book club’