Donoghue v. Stevenson

Facts

The appellant's friend bought her a bottle of opaque ginger-beer from a retailer. After she drank part of it, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out when the rest was poured. She alleged consequent illness and sued the manufacturer, with whom she had no contract. The bottle was opaque so the contents could not be inspected.

Issues

• Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer with whom there is no contractual relationship?
• When does the law recognise a duty to take care?

Arguments

The plaintiff argued the manufacturer owed her a duty to ensure the product contained no noxious matter. The manufacturer pleaded no duty was owed and that, being a stranger to the contract, her action was barred by the privity-of-contract fallacy.

Held

The House of Lords held the manufacturer owed a duty to take reasonable care that the bottle did not contain noxious matter and was liable for breach. Lord Atkin propounded the neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, neighbours being persons so closely and directly affected that you ought to have them in contemplation. The privity-of-contract fallacy was rejected because an action in tort is independent of contract.

Ratio decidendi

A person owes a duty of care to those whom he can reasonably foresee as likely to be injured by his act or omission; a manufacturer who supplies goods reaching the consumer in the form he left them, with no possibility of intermediate examination, owes the consumer a duty of reasonable care.

Significance

The foundational authority establishing negligence as an independent tort and the general duty-of-care test (neighbour principle); cited and applied universally in Indian and Commonwealth tort law.

Related