In August 1928, Mrs. Donoghue went to a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. Her friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer along with some ice cream. The bottle was made of dark glass, so they couldn’t see what was inside. The café staff opened the bottle and poured some of the ginger beer over the ice cream, which Mrs. Donoghue ate.
Later, when the rest of the ginger beer was poured into a glass, a dead and decomposed snail came out of the bottle. Mrs. Donoghue fell sick after consuming it and suffered from stomach issues and shock. Since she didn’t buy the drink herself, she had no contract with the manufacturer. Still, she sued the manufacturer, David Stevenson & Co., claiming that they were negligent in ensuring the product’s safety.
Issue before the Court
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson raised two major legal questions. First, it questioned whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to someone who uses their product, even if that person did not buy the product directly or have a contract with the manufacturer. Second, it asked whether the harm suffered by Mrs. Donoghue getting sick from a contaminated bottle of ginger beer was something the manufacturer should have reasonably foreseen. These issues were important because they helped define the modern law of negligence.
Arguments of the Appellant
Mrs. Donoghue’s lawyers argued that the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, had a duty to make sure his products were safe for people to consume. Since the bottle was opaque and she couldn’t check its contents, she had to trust that it was safe. Her team said that manufacturers must be careful when making food or drinks and ensure no harmful objects end up inside.
They also used the legal principle called res ipsa loquitur, meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” The presence of a dead snail in the bottle suggested that something had clearly gone wrong during manufacturing, and such negligence should not happen if proper care was taken.
You can also read the Judgement of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018).
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry ]
Arguments of the Respondent
Mr. Stevenson’s legal team argued that he was not legally responsible for Mrs. Donoghue’s illness. Their main point was that there was no direct contract between them since her friend had bought the drink, not her. At the time, the law generally required a contract to claim damages, so Stevenson claimed he owed no legal duty to Mrs. Donoghue.
They also suggested that her illness might not have been caused by the ginger beer at all. According to them, her health issues could have come from some other cause, and there wasn’t enough proof to link her condition directly to their product.
Analysis of the Court
In this case, the majority of the judges held the manufacturer responsible for negligence. Lord Atkin introduced an important idea that under the law, a person has a duty not to harm their "neighbor." He then explained that a "neighbor" is someone who is closely and directly affected by one’s actions, and whose harm could be reasonably foreseen. This idea became a key part of negligence law.
Lord Esher supported the view that a duty of care can exist even if there is no contract between the parties. He explained that if someone is close enough to another person or their property, they have a responsibility not to act in a way that could harm them.
The judges clarified that this closeness, or “proximity,” does not only mean physical closeness. It includes situations where someone's actions directly affect another person in a way that should have been anticipated.
Lord Macmillan emphasized that a manufacturer who produces food or drinks for public use has a duty to take proper care during production. The duty is owed to the people who are expected to consume the products. The court noted that any harm from carelessness in such cases is not too remote or unexpected, so the manufacturer should have foreseen it.
In conclusion, the court, by a 3:2 majority, decided that the manufacturer was liable for negligence because they owed a duty of care to the consumer. This case became a landmark decision in developing the concept of duty of care in negligence law.
