Legal Analysis of Donoghue v Stevenson: Negligence Case Study

This case study delves into the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), a cornerstone of English tort law concerning negligence. The assignment meticulously outlines the material facts, including the incident where a consumer found a decomposed snail in a ginger beer bottle, manufactured by the respondent. It defines the legal issues involved, such as the absence of a direct contractual relationship between the consumer and manufacturer, and the subsequent establishment of a duty of care. The study examines the court's decision, highlighting the dissenting and assenting judgments, particularly focusing on Lord Atkin's introduction of the 'neighbour principle,' which established that a duty of care is owed to those who are reasonably foreseeable as being affected by one's actions or omissions. The analysis also explores the development and application of this principle over time, including its impact on product liability and the modern law of negligence. Furthermore, the case study also highlights the application of the Donoghue v. Stevenson judgment in another case study to assess its harmful effects in the later case.

LLM IBL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
1. Material facts related with case..........................................................................................1
2. Defining legal issues involved in case................................................................................2
3. Decision given by court......................................................................................................4
4. Reasons for difference in judgements................................................................................5
5. & 6 Neighbour principle and its development over period................................................6
7. Application of judgement of previously decided case in present case study.....................8
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................12

INTRODUCTION
One of the important laws in English law is Tort of Negligence. This law is related with
protection of rights of individuals against harm and injury caused to them; be it omission of act
or negligence on part of someone other. Other party owed a care of duty to a person and due to
their negligence act, former party suffers physical and mental harm. The law has beenformulated
to protect rights to individuals from past so many years, as tort law and doctrine of negligence
provides them certain right to protect their interest against any civil wrong done to them. This
law is being application since a judgement passed in the year 1932.
In the present case study, the way tort law and doctrine of negligence were formed as
well as applied in relevant cases will be discussed. With formation of this law, a test in name of
Neighbour test was also established through a judgement passed in case Donoghue v Stevenson.
The present report will contain all material facts related with this case from foundation of till
final judgement passed after all appeals made by defendant. Along with this, the facts and
judgement related with this case will also be applied in another lawsuit to assess harmful effects
related with later case.
MAIN BODY
1. Material facts related with case
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Facts:
Appellant: M' Alister /Donoghue (Shop Assistant)
Respondent: Stevenson (Manufacturer of Aerated Water)
Donoghue went to a restaurant with her friend and she bought her a ginger beer. The
bottle of beer was made from dark opaque glass and content of bottle was not visible. She
consumed half of the drink with after pouring it on ice cream and consumed some directly from
bottle1. On pouring remaining beer on ice cream remains of decomposed snail emerged out from
bottle . This incident gave her a sudden nervous shock as she had consumed that beer which had
decomposed remains of snail in it. She also suffered with severe gastroenteritis.
1 Bach, J., 2016. Illinois Tort Case Law Update. S. Ill. ULJ, 41, p.561.
1

A case was filed against respondents to recover the damages suffered by appellant due to
consuming some ginger beer which contained remains of a decomposed snail and was
manufactured by respondent.
Contention by Appellant's
The appellant alleged that bottle of ginger beer was purchased by her friend for her. It
was made up of opaque material and content inside bottle was not visible so, there was no reason
for her to suspect that bottle contained pure ginger beer nothing else. . The cafe owner poured
some beer in a tumbler and she consumed beer from that tumbler2. as she poured remaining
beer into tumbler, remains of decomposed snail emerged out from bottle of ginger beer. When
she saw that decomposed snail which cam out of her beer bottle she suffered for a severe nerves'
shock and gastroenteritis.
The appellant further alleged that ginger beer was manufactured by respondent with a
label on it which was stating its name on it The bottles were filled with ginger beer and then
sealed with metal cap by respondent only. She also contented that, it was duty of respondent to
apply a working system that would not allow snails to enter into bottle. With this, respondent is
responsible to inspect bottles after ginger beer was filled in them. The allegation was that
respondent failed in both his duties to check bottle before filling and inspect them after filling
ginger beer which led this incident with appellant.
Objection by respondent:
It was objected by respondents that these allegations were irrelevant and insufficient to
support the summons’s conclusion. Respondent was of the view that allegations and averment by
applicant was illogical and did not have any legal base for making a claim for damages.
2. Defining legal issues involved in case
Case proceedings: first a case was filed by appellant for breach of warranty of a contract
but it was held that she was held that she was not a party to contract. So her contention was
dismissed. She, then filed up a case against the manufacturer of ginger beer to claim damages.
The case went up to the house of lords and then further proceedings related with case were
carried out.
Issues related with case:
2 Henderson Jr, J.A., 2017. Learned Hand's Paradox: An Essay on Custom in Negligence
Law. Cal. L. Rev., 105, p.165.
2

No contractual relation: Lord ordinary held that he allegation disclosed a good cause of
action for applicant againt repondent and allowed the case for evidences. In second division
action was dismissed by majority. With relevance to a case Mullen v. Barr co Ltd, decided in
1929, the second division felt bound by this case, for deciding a cause of action to appellant.
No contractual relationship between Donoghue and Stevenson- as per law a contractual relation
between a manufacturer and consumer is established only in case where the consumer is the
ultimate buyer of the product. In this care ginger beer was purchased by friend of applicant so
there was no contractual relation between her and respondent.
Absence of contractual relationship: in case where there is no contract between two
parties, a manufacturer do not owe a duty of care to consumer when product is put in market
place, except,
 manufacturer is aware about dangerous facts related with product and its defect and the
facts was concealed from consumers,
 there was danger know fron starting for product was not revealed to consumers.
Determination of cause of action
the cause of an action means an injury or damage suffered by a person because of
negligent act of another person as stated in case of Heaven v. Pender. In the present case it was
held by Lord Ordinary that there was a severe injury caused to applicant due to omission of
possible act by the manufactures. In this case though it was on the face of facts that the applicant
suffered a nervous shock and gastroenteritis due to consumption of ginger beer with remains of
snail. But as it was though the injury can be seen but with no contractual relation the injured
party cannot make a claim.
Duty of care??
As it was held by lord of ordinary that with no contractual relationship, manufacturer do
not owe a care of duty for applicant. But further it was also established that applicant suffer
severe cause of action due to negligence on behalf of respondent, so a reasonable foundation is
required to provide a remedy to applicant for damages suffer by her3. For making a strong case
against respondent a significant fact was required to be presnet to make a claim for damages
suffered by applicant.
3 Iacobucci, E.M. and Trebilcock, M.J., 2016. An economic analysis of waiver of tort in
negligence actions. University of Toronto Law Journal, 66(2), pp.173-196.
3

In this case Lord Atkin who was one of the lord from house of Lords who were hearing
this case, came up with a new principle called as neighbour principle. This principle stated that a
person is responsible to another person who is directly or indirectly affected by an act or
omission of his/her act. The person owes a duty of care to another person in case if late one is
likely to get affected by action of former person.
A general duty of care is said to exist between two parties under the neighbour principle.
The respondent should have taken a reasonable care when it can foresee the effect of its act of
negligence. With application on neighbour principle it can be said that a defect in packaging can
lead to health issue to the consumer of ginger beer. The manufacturer and consumers are linked
together as consumer is the one who will ingest the ginger beer produced by manufacturer.
Lastly, it can be said that respondent owed a duty of care to consumer whether she purchased the
beer or someone else. The person who suffer ultimate cause of action is victim of act of
negligence by respondent.
3. Decision given by court
House of Lords: Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomli, Lord Thankerton, and Lord
Macmillan.
Assenting: Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan.
Dissenting: Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin
With a majority decision by 3-2 was given in favour of Donoghue and it was held a duty
of care was owed to her by the respondent who was manufacturer of ginger beer. Donoghue was
in contemplation as the ultimate consumer4. Her claim was successful and with finalisation of
this case a modern law of negligence was established along with a neighbour test.
The decision was given after considering several points:
 in case of tort negligence is distinct and separate.
 A contractual relationship is not required between applicant and respondent.
 A duty of care is owed by manufacturer to consumers for whom they have an intention to
consume their product.
Another application was neighbour principle which states that love thy neighbour and
neighbour are persons who are likely to get affected by your act or omission.
4 Pandey, R., 2017. Is the Commissioner immune from the tort of negligence? Taxation in
Australia, 51(9), p.494.
4

Donoghue proved all her allegation against Stevenson she had a cause of action in law and is
eligible for compensation for injury suffered by her.
4. Reasons for difference in judgements
Dissenting: Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin
Reason: the lords gave an opinion that the case of applicant was solely based on tort not
fraud and negligence which cannot be held as a relevant fact for claiming a compensation for
injury suffered. Another objection by both lords was that through the argument under appeal it
was on basis and undisputed by second division and was never questioned by counsel for
appellant. In his final verdict he said that with relevance taken from cases Georgev. Skivington
and Mullen V Barr co., it can be stated that respondent owed no duty of care to applicant as
claim for damages can only be moved forward with a possibility of investigation and answer
only5. So this appeal should be dismissed and lordship shall be moved accordingly.
Assenting: Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan
Reason: the majority was governed by the movement of v Lord Atkin. It was him only
who moved votes to majority in this case. The main reason behind this majority vote was
establishment and application of neighbour principle.
Atkin's neighbouring principle: in the law of negligence this principle provides a
relevant base for resolving a question of duty of care. With the absence of contractual relation,
Donoghue was not able to make a compensation claim for injury suffered by her and for
providing an alternate solution for claiming an injury compensation Atkin came up with this
principle. This principle formed a strong foundation for the case of applicant. Before
establishment of this principle a contractual relation between respondent and applicant was a
necessary thing, without that a claim was not granted by court. Lord Atkin made this principle to
provide an alternate solution to applicant. With the doctrine of judicial precedent the judgement
passed in this case was referred in many other cases in the future.
The relevant case laws were cited by Lord Atkin such as, Bottomley V. Bannister, in this
case a judgement was passed that when a danger is occasioned by lack of care of a person
himself, there is a lack of proximity relationship and that case was dismissed.
5 Reiss, D.R., 2018. Health Law: Protecting Children when Parents Choose Not to
Vaccinate. The Judges' Book, 2(1), p.13.
5

In present case study a there exist all three element to satisfy a neighbour test i.e.
foreseeability, proximity and fair and just care of duty. In case a fault is done by manufacturer it
is obvious that the consumer will suffer. He proximity relation was there as the respondent
manufactures' product with an intent of intake by consumer. The care duty on manufacturer was
just, fair and reasonable, it was imposed on him.
5. & 6 Neighbour principle and its development over period
This principle was enacted by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) under law of
negligence. Neighbour principles provided a base to resolve the questions related with duty of
care. The main legal issue which arises during proceeding of this case was whether respondent
owed a duty of care to appellant who was the consumer of its product. With formation of this
principle, this was made clear through a neighbour test to determine care of duty of a person to
another for an act undertaken by former person.
With the presentation of this case, House of Lords deemed it necessary to provide an
alternate solution to an injured party in absence of contractual relation in between respondent and
appellant so that a claim of injury suffered by appellant can be made6. As the bottle of ginger
beer by friend of Donoghue and her friend only had a right to sue Stevenson under a contract.
This was decided in previous case that only party who purchase a product enters into a contract
with manufacturer of such product.
Lord Atkin articulated this principle which determines the liability of duty of care in
negligence. House of Lords impose a liability of negligence on owner of cafe stating that this
could have been possible only if there is a liability of duty of care between owner and the victim.
The parameters outlined by Lord Atkin was quoted as :
A person must take reasonable care in avoidance of acts or omission which he/she can
foresee and occurrence of such is likely to cause injury to his/her neighbour. Who, then is
neighbour, in law? The answer was given as, individuals who will be affected by other person's
act closely and directly. This is responsibility of that person to act reasonably and to takes other
in contemplation as those individuals are likely to be affected by his/her act when he/she is
directing their mind toward such act or omission.
6 Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P., 2017. Tort Law and Commonsense Justice:
Convergence and Divergence. Ct. Rev., 53, p.110.
6

This principle, thus opened gates to claim for injured parties under negligence. This was
applied as identification of class of people to whom a duty of care can owed in a particular
scenario. This principle held a person while carries out an act or omission of negligence he/she is
responsible for the consequences caused by such act to another person as injury caused to them.
The main motive of this principle is to set criteria to test that whether their exist a duty of care
between two parties when there is no contract between such parties.
With establishment of this principle Donoghue was provided with a solid foundation for
her case as it was proved that respondent owed a care of duty to a person who is consuming their
product irrelevant of fact that who purchased that product.
Lord Atkin introduced his principle of neighbour in case of Donoghue by saying that in
law rule is that you must love your neighbour you must not injure your neighbour. This principle
found a strong base for the case of Donoghue but this did not provide a full immune solution and
later it leads to subsequent development and refinement on this principle.
Further, some deciding case laws added significant strength to structure of neighbour
principle. These cases were Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd (1964), and
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990). In case of Hedley it was established that duty of care
only be established if it can be shown that there subsided a special relationship between the
parties7. A special relation can be found on the basis that one party was seeking advice or
information to another party on was trusting other party to exercise a degree of care in situation
requires that. In case of Caparo principle of neighbour got extension based on foreseeability,
proximity and consideration of fairness and justice.
The Caparo test: there are three stages in this test:
Foreseeability: at this stage it is determined that whether it was foreseeable that
carelessness of respondent could cause damage to applicant. With application of this test in case
law Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad co, it was declared by court though the injury to applicant
was traceable but with application of foreseeability test it was held that the possible injury was
not foreseeable in present case.
Proximity: at this stage it is determined whether there was a proximity relationship
between respondent and applicant. A physical proximity is not required rather a connection
7 Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P., 2017. Tort Law and Commonsense Justice:
Convergence and Divergence. Ct. Rev., 53, p.110.
7

between two must be established. This can be clearly seen in case of Aclock v Chief constable
of South Yorkshire (1991), this was held that link between defendant and claimant was too far so
here was no duty of care owed.
Fairness: at this stage court finds that to establish a care of duty on respondent would be
fair, just and reasonable. This stage act as a safety valve in case where applicability of duty of
care might be dictating and unreasonable. So to avoid unfair imposition of duty of care this stage
was developed. This was held in case of Marc Rich v. Bishop Marine CoLtd.(1995).
With the applicability of this test in a case, when all three stages are passed it can be said
that a duty of care was owed and the court can pronounce a judgement accordingly.
with foundation of neighbour principle by Lord Atkin a case got its foundation and it was
resolved on basis of this principle only8. But with change in time new circumstances arises and
with that, this principle was also refined from time to time, to adapt the changes and make it
feasible for changing scenario.
In conclusion it can be stated that neighbour principle gave a significant starting point for
law in this field of establishment of duty of care. But with decision of subsequent case laws it
was observed that this principle was alone not enough to as individual application in law suits.
This principle will remain a foundation base for care of duty but with time it has been refined
and changed by courts thus it can bot be relied upon totally can be considered for taking light and
slavishly guidelines.
7. Application of judgement of previously decided case in present case study
This is a case related with water contamination in Nigeria with oil spilling out of
pipelines. Land, forest and all scourers of water have been contaminated with oil. With increase
in oil spills the death ratio is also increasing.
Case: the present case is about the oil spills near the Nigerian village and Nigerian-delta.
The water sources like rivers, wells are all flooded with oil crude. The main reason for oil spills
for several months in these water resources is that oil pipeline criss-crossing the Nigerian Delta
are more than 40 years old and they have corroded with time. Forest and farmland are covered
with a sheen layer of oil making them contaminated and barren for growing vegetation. This oil
8 Stimson, C.J., 2016. Hospital Risk Management and the US Legal System: An
Introduction to US Medical Malpractice Tort Law. In Risk Management in Medicine (pp. 69-76).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
8

Conduct of company: the companies were informed immediately after the starting of oil
spilling. But they did not take any action for a period of more than 6 months and which lead to
deterioration of standing crops. Forest and fields were covered with a sheen layer of oil. All
rivers and wells were covered with layers of oil which make it hard for fishing
Application of neighbour principles: this principle can have applied in this case to
determine the duty and responsibility of oil companies for the people living in Nigerian Delta.
This principle states that a manufacturer or a procurer is liable for its act or omission towards
people who are likely to be affected directly or significantly due to such act or omission9. Oil
companies had their oil pipelines in Nigerian delta for more than 50 years so it can be said that
the companies hold responsibility towards people in that vicinity.
Caparo test:
Foreseeability: the oil companies while installation of pipelines must be aware of the
fact that with time, pipeline will erode and this can lead to spilling of oil in Nigerian Delta. The
future damages can be forecasted at time of installation and with this proper remedial measures
can be planned for future so that timely maintenances of pipelines can be done. The oil spilling at
present time can be foreseen at time when they were installed, as pipelines will chemically react
with oil and other environmental conditions , that will result in erosion of pipeleines.
Proximity: this means presence of a direct or indirect relation between oil companies and
people living in Nigerian Delta. The relation here can be established as the oil companies had
installed the pipelines in area where these people are living from last so many years. The
companies are using their lands for expansion for their business, the land reouses, these business
organisations are exploiting awere for cultivation and growing crops and vegetationby peoe
living there. So there is a proximity relation between oil companies and people living in the
Delta.
Fairness: to impose a care of duty on oil companies is fair and reasonable. As those
business are exploiting the forest, farm land and also water resources. They owed a care of duty
for protection of the lives and environment of Nigerian Delta from harmful effects of oil spilling
transported from pipelines passing through such delta.
9 Tyler, T.R., 2016. Procedural justice. In Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial
processes (pp. 47-62). Routledge.
9

Duty of care: form the application of neighbour and Caparo test it can be concluded that
Oil companies owed a duty of care for people living in Nigerian delta. A care must be taken for
people and environment to protect them from harmful effect of oil spilling. A breach of duty of
care was done by oil companies as the failed in complying with safety norms of prevention of
corrosion of oil pipelines.
Tort of negligence: as per this law it can be concluded that a civil wrong has been done
by oil companies to people living in vicinity of Nigerian delta. As per tort of negligence the
three important element that must be present are duty of care, breach and damage, in this case
study a duty of care was established with application of Neighbour and Caparo test. The oil
companies owed a duty of care towards public in surroundings of Nigerian Delta. A breach was
done no action by companies for more than 6 months after an information of oil spilling was
given to them. Significant damages had been suffered by people in form of contamination of
water resources, loss of growing vegetations and crop and forests and farm land also become
barren.
For the case study off oil companies’ v/s People in Nigerian Delta it can be concluded
that procurer of oil owed a duty of care for people in surroundings of their oil pipeline
installations. They did not take care of their pipelines, this resulted in erosion of pipeline and oil
leakage on farmland, forest and water. A damage was done to cultivation, farm land, forest and
all water resources which had an adverse effect on earnings and lives of people10. As the main
source of their living was fishing, growing and selling of crops. The oil procuring organisation
are under a duty to pay compensation to all who have had suffered lossesdue to their
carelessness. Also, immediate action shall be implemented to stop oil leakage to protect further
damages to environment and human beings.
CONCLUSION
From above study of the case Donoghue v Stevenson it can be interpreted that this was
the case from which duty of care of a manufacture was established for the ultimate consumer of
its product without presence of a contract between respondent and applicant. With the conclusion
of this case scope of tort of negligence expanded and a neighbour test was established to
determine presence of care of duty. In scenario, a care of duty is owed the respondent is liable to
10 Tort Law. 2018. [Online]. Available through:<
http://www.lawvision.com.au/uploads/PDFs/Tort%20Law%20.pdf>.
10