DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON, (1932) AC 562- (Case Commentary)

Introduction

In English Law this is a famous case of Scottish dispute which shaped the doctrine of negligence.

Facts

On 26 August 1928, May Donoghue and one of her friend were sitting in a café in Scotland’s Glasgow. Donoghue’s friend ordered a drink for her. She purchased a bottle of ginger beer which was in a dark opaque glass bottle and later discovered that the bottle contained a decomposing snail. This snail couldn’t be detected until she consumed a greater part of contents of the bottle. She fell ill and was diagnosed with gastroenteritis by a physician.

The foundation of her case is that the defendant manufactured ginger beer with an intention for consumption. It was the duty of the respondent to take care that there was no noxious element in the goods and to provide a system of inspection of the bottles before the ginger beer was filled into them but they neglected such duties and are consequently liable for any damage caused by such neglect.

Donoghue took a legal action against the manufacturer of the bottle i.e. Mr. David Stevenson. A writ seeking $500 as damages was lodged by Donoghue.

Issue

In absence of no contractual term whether defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?

Analysis

Donoghue was one of the cases that should be cited, whenever the issue as to whether a duty of exists in negligence is to be explained or cited.

Lord Buckmaster and Lord Atkin has given two contradictory interpretations about the reasoning process which used to come to each judgment. It also emerges that the necessary ingredients in any situation with addition to the foreseeability of damage there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed. Court considers that the situation should be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope on the one party for the benefit of the other.

Lord Hope also stated that the fair, just and reasonable test will not only apply to economic loss cases but also to personal injury claims.

A definition of ‘neighbor’ was created through the case of Donoghue v Stevenson towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect casual link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. Also this has provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.

Decision

 The judgment is given by Five Lords i.e., Lord Buckmaster, Atkin, Tomlin, Thankerton, and Macmillan in this case. Three decisions were given in the favor of Donoghue’s appeal, including Lord Atkin. Atkin’s Judgment is also known as the leading judgment. The appeal was dismissed by Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin which means that they decided the case in favor of defendant Mr. Stevenson.

Basically this was a 3:2 majority decision in favor of Donoghue.

The notable outcome of this case is ‘Neighbor principle’ which has given by Lord Atkin. He stated that one must take reasonable care which one can reasonably foresee to avoid acts or omissions which would be likely to injure one’s neighbor. The Question arises who is my neighbor? The answer to this is the persons who are closely and directly affected by one’s act.

According to Lord Atkin,

A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form with an intention that the product reaches to the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him, without any reasonable possibility of examination and with the complete knowledge that if there is an absence of reasonable care in the preparation of the products then it will result in an injury to the life and property of a consumer. He has a duty to take reasonable care.

His decision was based on the moral principle i.e. protection of health and interest of the public through reasonable care.

According to Lord Macmillian,

He had a similar view like Atkin. If a person manufactures his commodities for human consumption with an intention that they will be consumed, then he places himself in a relationship with all the consumers of his commodities. A duty is imposed upon him to take care to avoid injury to consumer if he puts himself in a relationship which he assumed and desired for his own purpose.

According to Lord Thankerton,

When the respondent placed his manufactured article of drink upon the market has excluded the interference or examination of the article intentionally by any intermediate handler of the goods between himself and the consumer brought himself into direct relationship with the consumer. The result is that the consumer is entitled to rely upon the exercise of diligence by the manufacturer to secure that the article shall not be harmful to the consumer.

All the above mentioned judgments is based on a principle that a reckless manufacturer of a dangerously defective product is liable to a consumer to whom it causes personal injury.

Significance of the decision:

·         An action for negligence can exist whether or not there is a contract between the parties

·         A negligent action will only succeed if claimant can prove that defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant and the breach of duty by defendant will result in a damage.

·         In order to establish the existence of a duty of care the neighbor principle, based on reasonable foresight, must be applied. This is a minimum requirement and would not justify liability in all cases

·         A manufacturer of drinks owes a duty of care to the consumer not to cause injury by negligently allowing foreign bodies to contaminate those products.

·         Donoghue v. Stevenson only provides a remedy to consumers in the case of products which are likely to cause injury to health. It does not offer a remedy for shoddy or unmerchantable goods. That is the province of contract. 

 

-Vanshika Jain

Amity University.