Case Summary - Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Facts

Mrs May Donoghue was in a café in Paisley, Scotland. She ordered a ginger beer float, which was made with a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by David Stevenson.

Unknown to anyone, the bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail. Mrs Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer and became ill. She sued Stevenson for negligence.

Legal principles 

The manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of the product, even if there is no contractual relationship between them.

The duty of care is based on the neighbour principle, which states that a person owes a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their acts that they ought reasonably to have considered them.

In determining whether a duty of care exists, the court will consider the following factors:

·        the foreseeability of harm;

·        the proximity of the relationship between the parties;

·        the fairness, justice, and reasonableness of imposing a duty of care;

·        the standard of care required of a person is that of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.

A person who breaches a duty of care can be held liable for the foreseeable consequences of their negligence.

Decision

The House of Lords held that Stevenson owed a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue. The court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that a decomposed snail could end up in a bottle of ginger beer, and that Mrs Donoghue could become ill if she drank it. The court also found that it was fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on Stevenson.

More recent cases 

The principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson has been cited, followed, and amplified in many subsequent cases. Some examples include:

·        Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] UKHL 4: Hedley Byrne asked their bankers, Heller & Partners, to inquire into the financial stability of a company called Easipower. Heller gave Hedley Byrne a favourable reference. Based on the reference, Hedley Byrne placed orders but Easipower soon went into liquidation. Hedley Byrne sued Heller for negligence, claiming that the reference was negligently given and misleading. The House of Lords held that a negligent, though honest, misrepresentation may give rise to an action for damages for economic loss in tort because the law will imply a duty of care.

·        Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2: Caparo found on completing a takeover that the company’s accounts were worse than had been previously revealed by the accounts. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a three-fold test. For a duty of care to arise in negligence:

o  harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a potential result of the defendant's conduct, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson;

o  the parties must be in a relationship of proximity; and

o  it must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability.

Significance

Donoghue v Stevenson is a landmark case, and one of the most important, in the law of negligence. It established the basic principles of the duty of care, which have been applied in countless cases since. The case is still cited and followed today.