Donoghue v Stevenson

Facts

Mrs Donoghue consumed part of a bottle of ginger beer purchased by a friend from a café in Paisley, Scotland. After consuming some of the contents she discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the opaque bottle, and subsequently suffered gastroenteritis and shock. She brought an action in negligence against the manufacturer, Stevenson, as she had no contractual relationship with him.

Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care in negligence to the ultimate consumer who has no contractual relationship with the manufacturer. 2. Whether the neighbour principle provides a general basis for imposing a duty of care in tort.

Holding

The House of Lords (by a majority of 3:2) held that Stevenson owed a duty of care to Donoghue and that her claim disclosed a cause of action in negligence. The absence of a contractual relationship between the parties did not preclude the existence of a duty of care.

Ratio decidendi

A manufacturer of products who sells those products in circumstances where the manufacturer has no reasonable opportunity of intermediate examination, and knowing that the absence of reasonable care in preparation will result in injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. More broadly, a person owes a duty of care in negligence to persons so closely and directly affected by their acts or omissions that they ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when directing their minds to the acts or omissions in question — the 'neighbour principle'.

Obiter dicta

Lord Atkin's neighbour principle was stated in broader terms than strictly necessary to decide the case. His Lordship drew on the parable of the Good Samaritan and suggested the principle could extend beyond manufacturer–consumer relationships to form a general organising principle for the law of negligence, a proposition that has since been treated as the foundation of duty of care analysis across common law jurisdictions.

Significance

Donoghue v Stevenson is the foundational authority in Australian tort law for the duty of care in negligence, and Lord Atkin's neighbour principle has been consistently adopted and developed by the High Court of Australia as the starting point for analysing whether a duty of care exists in novel fact situations.

Key authorities

• Heaven v Pender Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503considered
• Le Lievre v Gould Le Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 QB 491distinguished
• Cavalier v Pope Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428distinguished
• Winterbottom v Wright Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109distinguished
• Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd 1929 SC 461considered