Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

KEY POINTS

• The "neighbour principle" established a duty to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to those directly affected by one's actions or omissions. This "neighbour" is not just someone in physical proximity but anyone who could be reasonably contemplated as being affected by one’s actions.

FACTS

• The appellant consumed a bottle of ginger beer given by a friend, only to discover decomposed snail remains after drinking most of it. She claimed to have suffered shock and gastro-enteritis as a result.

• She argued that the manufacturer, the respondent, had a duty to ensure the product's safety, as it was intended for consumption and couldn't be inspected.

• Her case contends that the respondent's negligence in fulfilling this duty makes them liable for the resulting harm.

COMMENTARY

• Lord Atkin's stance suggests that public opinion supports imposing liability for negligence to ensure just outcomes when harm is foreseeable.

• The case laid a foundation for the modern understanding of duty of care, emphasizing foreseeability, moral considerations, and the broader concept of a "neighbour".

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• A manufacturer (R) sold bottles of drink to a café which sold them to customers. 

• One bottle contained a snail and made Plaintiff ill when she drank it. 

• Case in HL determined whether R had a legal duty to Plaintiff and thus whether a case could be brought. 

• HL said there was a legal duty, establishing

  1. That manufacturers have a duty to take care for their consumers and

  2. That R must take “reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable injury”.

Lord Atkin

Negligence

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

• He defines “neighbour” as people who are “so directly affected” by my act or omission that I “ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected” when I undertake the act/omission.

  • This is the meaning of the “proximity” doctrine i.e. not merely physical proximity. 

• He takes moral perspective: It is wrong that a person who consumes the product and is harmed due to R’s negligence should be left without remedy as would happen if there were no contract/warranty involved, i.e. if the consumer is not the purchaser, as here.

• Finally he says that liability for negligence has public support. 

Lord Macmillan

• To whom was the duty owed? All “potential consumers” of his product. 

Liability occurs where a reasonable man would have foreseen, and could have avoided the consequences of his act/omission

• Circumstances will always dictate whether:

  1. There was a duty of care and

  2. To whom it was owed.

• NB where the product was intended to reach the consumer in the condition in which the manufacturer sold it, and it was so, the manufacturer is liable, as in this case. 

• However if intermediary parties “have the means and opportunity” to examine it, then the manufacturer’s liability ceases (not this case). 

• Negligence has to be proved by Plaintiff and it has to be shown that the thing was in a state capable of causing injury at the point when it left the manufacturer. The burden is on Plaintiff, and res ipsa loquitur doesn’t apply.

• Lord Macmillan said that “the categories of negligence are never closed”.

RELATED CASES

• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

• Murphy v Brentwood DC