Donoghue v Stevenson
26 May 1932 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even in the absence of a contractual relationship, if the product is sold in a form that shows it is intended to reach the consumer without intermediate inspection and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care will result in injury to the consumer's life or property.
Facts:
- A friend of May Donoghue purchased a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by David Stevenson, from a retailer in Paisley, Scotland.
- The ginger beer was in a dark, opaque glass bottle, sealed with a metal cap, which prevented inspection of the contents.
- The friend gave the ginger beer to Donoghue in a cafe.
- Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer directly from the bottle.
- When the remainder was poured into a glass, the decomposed remains of a snail emerged from the bottle.
- As a result of consuming the contaminated ginger beer, Donoghue suffered from shock and severe gastroenteritis.
Procedural Posture:
- May Donoghue instituted proceedings against David Stevenson in the Court of Session, the highest civil court in Scotland, acting as a court of first instance.
- The Lord Ordinary, acting as the trial judge, found Donoghue's allegations to be relevant and allowed a proof (a trial of the facts).
- Stevenson, the respondent, appealed this decision to the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Second Division recalled the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor and dismissed the action, holding that Donoghue had no cause of action.
- Donoghue, the appellant, then appealed the judgment of the Second Division to the House of Lords, the final court of appeal for the United Kingdom.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer of an article of drink sold in an opaque container, which prevents intermediate inspection, owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer to ensure the article is free from defects likely to cause injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Lord Atkin
Yes, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer in these circumstances. The legal principle is that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. A neighbor is any person who is so closely and directly affected by one's act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected. A manufacturer who sells products in sealed containers, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, places themselves in a proximate relationship with the ultimate consumer, thus creating a duty of care to prevent defects that could cause harm.
Majority - Lord Macmillan
Yes, the manufacturer has a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. The law is concerned with carelessness where there is a duty to take care, and the categories of such duties are never closed. A person who manufactures food and drink for public consumption places themselves in a relationship with all potential consumers, which imposes a duty to take care to avoid injuring them. Where an article is sold in a container that prevents tampering or inspection, the manufacturer's control remains effective until it reaches the consumer, making them directly responsible for its condition.
Majority - Lord Thankerton
Yes, the manufacturer has a duty of care to the consumer. The key fact is that the manufacturer, by sealing the bottle, has intentionally excluded any interference with or examination of the article by any intermediate handler. By doing so, the manufacturer brings themselves into a direct relationship with the consumer, who is entitled to rely upon the manufacturer exercising diligence to ensure the product is not harmful. This direct relationship creates the legal duty of care.
Dissenting - Lord Buckmaster
No, a manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to a consumer with whom they have no contract. The established common law holds that a manufacturer's liability arises only from contract, with limited exceptions for articles dangerous in themselves or where there is fraud, neither of which applies here. Extending the duty would create a broad, unmanageable principle, making manufacturers liable to an indeterminate class of persons for any defect. The logic of prior cases, such as Winterbottom v. Wright, confines liability to those in a contractual relationship.
Dissenting - Lord Tomlin
No, the manufacturer does not owe a duty to the final consumer. I agree with Lord Buckmaster's reasoning. The case of Winterbottom v. Wright is directly on point and negatives the existence of the principle the appellant contends for. To establish such a duty would require extending liability to every manufacturer for any article, which is logically impossible to contain and contrary to existing English common law.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the modern tort of negligence by creating a general duty of care owed to one's 'neighbor,' defined as anyone foreseeably affected by one's actions. It dismantled the 'privity of contract fallacy,' which previously limited liability to parties in a direct contractual relationship. The case set a foundational precedent for product liability law, holding manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products to the ultimate consumer, significantly broadening the scope of tortious liability.
Unlock the full brief for Donoghue v Stevenson