Donoghue v Stevenson

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, 1932 S.L.T. 317, [1932] W.N. 139, established the neighbour principle, holding that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers even without a contractual relationship.

Issue

Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a consumer who did not purchase the product directly and with whom they have no contractual relationship. Specifically, is the manufacturer liable for harm caused by a defective product (a snail in ginger beer) consumed by the plaintiff?

Rule

The “neighbour principle” established by Lord Atkin:

• A person owes a duty of care to their “neighbour” — anyone who is closely and directly affected by their act, and whom they ought reasonably to have in contemplation when acting or omitting to act.

• Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products.

• Liability in negligence arises when harm is reasonably foreseeable, there is proximity, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

  
  

Application

• Foreseeability: It was reasonably foreseeable that if the manufacturer failed to ensure the ginger beer was safe, a consumer could suffer harm.

• Proximity: Donoghue was the ultimate consumer of the product. Though she did not purchase it herself, she was within the class of persons directly affected by the manufacturer’s actions.

• Policy: Without imposing liability, consumers would be left without remedy because they lacked contractual privity with the manufacturer. Recognizing a duty closed that gap and created accountability.

• Facts Applied: The snail in the opaque bottle rendered the drink unsafe. Donoghue suffered illness (gastroenteritis), which was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defect.

  
  

Conclusion

The House of Lords held that the manufacturer (Stevenson) owed a duty of care to Donoghue. This established the foundation of modern negligence law, expanding liability beyond contractual relationships and embedding the neighbour principle as the cornerstone of duty of care in tort law.