M'Alister
(or Donoghue) (Pauper) v. Stevenson
[1932]
A.C. 562 (H.L.)
This
case laid the foundation of modern tort of negligence
Author- Aarti Yadav, B.A.LLB(Hons), C.M.P Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
ABSTRACT
The case of Donoghue v.
Stevenson was crucial to tort law because it established the contemporary
definition of negligence. The case began when May Donoghue felt sick after
drinking ginger beer. Between Donoghue (the drinker) and David Stevenson (the
manufacturer), there was no privity of contract to proceed on a theory of
breach of contract because she did not buy the drink. It created the foundation
for the common law's development of a duty of care. This case solidly
established new foundations for tort law and consumer protection by extending
the duty of care beyond a contractual relationship. It established that
manufactured goods impose a duty of care and liability on their end users.
Later, the case was acknowledged as the authoritative. The case had
subsequently been accepted as the authority in establishing tortious liability
in India
PRIMARY DETAILS
|
FIELD |
DETAILS |
|
CASE NO. |
[1932]A.C. 562 (H.L.)(appeal
taken from Scot.) |
|
JURISDICTION |
HOUSE OF LORDS(United Kingdom) |
|
CASE FILED ON |
Not specifically
recorded(incident occurred on 26th Aug 1928) |
|
CASE DECIDED ON |
26th May 1932 |
|
·
JUDGES |
·
Lord
Atkin, Lord Thankerton,Lord Macmillan(Majority) ·
Lord Buckmaster, Lord
Tomlin(Dissent) |
|
LEGAL PROVISIONS |
Common law principle of
negligence; no statute involved |
|
APPELLANT |
May Donoghue |
|
RESPONDENT |
David Stevenson |
|
JUDGMENT TYPE |
Majority 3:2 |
|
CASE SUMMARY BY |
Aarti Yadav |
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
On August 26th 1928, May Donoghue, resident of
Glasgow, accompanied a friend to the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland. May
Donoghue's friend bought a bottle of ginger beer from Mr. David Stevenson, a
local ginger beer manufacturer. Ginger beer was sold in dark glass opaque
bottles, meaning that no one could see the contents of the bottle. After she
consumed some of the drink, her friend poured the remainder into a glass and
there was a snail that was decomposed in the bottle.
May Donoghue claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and mental shock after the incident caused by the contaminated drink. Since May was not the person who had purchased the drink, she could not file a claim for breach of contract as there was no privity. Therefore, May filed a claim against the manufacturer David Stevenson on the grounds of negligence. The original case was tried in the Scottish courts and was later brought to the House of Lords. Since the principle of negligence in English law was not yet defined at the time, this case has become significant.
The eventual question was the harm caused by the manufacturer to the consumer when a contract was not involved. Donoghue won the case by a majority decision of the House of Lords, and this marked the starting of the modern negligence laws. The majority decision implied by the other majority opinions was that the court found duty and care needing subtle care not to do acts that caused harm to one’s ‘neighbors’. Ones’ neighbors included people situated closely and directly affected by a person’s activities.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE
CASE
The major legal issue was whether a manufacturer owed a final consumer a duty of care who could not sue under a contract for a tort claim. It had not been completely determined in English tort law whether such a duty existed at that time, regardless of privity of contract limitation of actions to the parties to a contract. In other words, Donoghue could not sue for breach of contract as she was not apurchaser of the ginger beer - remember she had to use negligence!
The key legal question
was:
Can a manufacturer be
liable in tort for negligence where the defective product injures a consumer
who did not directly purchase the product?(Whether
or not the manufacturer of ginger beer knew of a defect in the product that was
clearly unfit for human consumption and may have fraudulently concealed it from
the consumer)
Is it a dangerous
product and did the manufacturer neglect to warn the consumer?
Can you bring a
negligence cause of action since there is no contract between the plaintiff and
the manufacturer?
This question had greater legal implications
about tort liability, foreseeability of harm and the existence of a general
duty on the part of individuals not to bring harm upon others through either
action or inaction.
The House of Lords
answered this question in the positive.
ARGUMENTS BY THE
PARTIES
·
The Plaintiff's
Claim (Donoghue):
May Donoghue on the appeal by her
legal representatives’ argued that she had suffered physical injury due to
negligence on the part of the manufacturer, Mr. David Stevenson. She drank
ginger beer from a sealed bottle that was opaque for what she claimed to
supposedly contained the decomposing body of a snail. She then suffered a
severe gastroenteritis for which she “sustained such injury as a direct result
of said Mr. Stevenson’s failure to act as a reasonable and prudent man in the
man-home of the said ginger beer and in the bottling and inspection of the
product. Her main
legal contention was that, even though she and the product's manufacturer did
not have a contract (her friend had purchased the drink), the manufacturer
still owed her a duty of care as the product's final user. She maintained that
there was a direct relationship that resulted in a duty of care in the tort
context because it was predictable that the product would reach the final
customer without any additional inspection.
·
Defendant's Argument
(Stevenson):
David
Stevenson, the defendant, claimed that there was no privity of contract and
therefore he owed Donoghue no legal duty of care. In order to limit liability
for negligence to parties in privity of contract, he quoted a number of precedents.
Any duty of care, according to Stevenson's defence, would be owed to the
buyer—Donoghue's friend—rather than to other people. He claimed that giving
consumers who were not parties to a contract a duty would allow manufacturers
to make irrational demands and unjustified obligations. The defence in
Stevenson came to the conclusion that the law did not give a third party
claimant a foundation to sue for loss or injury in the absence of a contract or
fraudulent misrepresentation because of
defective products from third parties.
LEGAL ISSUES EXAMINED BY THE COURT
1.
WHETHER A
MANUFACTURE OWS A DUTY OF CARE TO ULTIMATE CONSUMER:
Donoghue did not
purchase the ginger beer; it was purchased by her friend. One important
background consideration was whether the absence of a contract precluded her
from bringing a claim.
2.
SCOPE AND BASIS:
The court had to
analyze whether duty of care exists, independently of contract, especially in
relation to consumers. This raised a larger question: whether a general duty of
care could be structured as negligence to deal with this situation.
3.
THE NOTION OF
“NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE” AND FORESEEABILITY:
In summary, Lord
Atkin's judgement referenced and considered the “neighbour principle,"
where he asked whether the defendant should have been able to reasonably
foresee that his action(s) may or would cause harm to a person that was
directly and closely impacted by his action(s).
4.
LIMITS ON
MANUFACTURER’S LIABILITY:
The court looked
at whether it would be judicially or legally appropriate to impose liability on
manufacturers for all foreseeable users of their products, or whether this
would be an inordinate burden.
JUDGMENT:
The result was in the appellant’s favor, a majority such as 3:2 decided. Lord Atkin explains the ruling where in this case Mrs. Donoghue should in any case have been owed a duty of care. This component of the case eventually became a critical part of modern negligence law. The Lord, for instance, speaks of the neighbour principle in the “leading opinion.”
"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them "
Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
The neighbour principle together involved the manufacturer taking all reasonable measures to ensure the consumer could be able to use it, in a proverbial way, the snail would have been a sign of the negligence on the side of the vendor given the bottle being dishonest.
He defined "neighbour" as "Persons
who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
have them in contemplation as being so affected."
Nonetheless, Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin offered a different opinion of the judgments arguing that the appellant’s assertion contradicted the law that had already been established. Lord Buckmaster even implied that the scope of the exemption had to be limited to items that were dangerous “ per se ”. He described that the circumstance as “ a consistent necessity by the state itself ”; in any case, Lord Buckmaster asserted that the other justices had declined to be drawn into the intricacies of the exposition.
Moreover, both justices pointed out that there was a legal issue about whether George v. Skivington (1869) was decided or not and also had misgivings about the kind of cases that would be generated by extending the liability of products manufacturers both in kind and number. No hypothetical considerations could justify such an unreasonable burden on industry, in Lord Buckmaster’s opinion, however some actual need, socially and economically unjustified. This would be intolerable, in Lord Tomlin’s opinion..
INFLUENCE ON INDIAN LAW
1.
The Formation of
Negligence Law:
In India, the
case is oftentimes referenced for product liability and negligence cases. The
Indian judiciary has accepted multiple decisions which held the manufacturer
liable to the consumers based on even when there was a contract's absence. This
principle supports the argument that the manufacturer had a duty to 'reasonable
care' to prevent a 'foreseeable injury' to 'persons who would be closely and
directly affected' by his act.
2.
Product
Liability in India:
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) a
case about environmental implications of industrial activity and the enduring
nature of pollution described that even when there were no contractual
relations involved, manufacturers would be liable for defective products based
on the principles described in Donoghue v. Stevenson.
3.
Indian Consumer
Protection Laws:
The ruling has also influenced the enactment
of consumer protection laws in India.The evolving approach to consumer protection, influenced by
international decisions, is reflected in the Consumer Protection Act, No.
35of 2019 § 2 (2019)(India), which particularly addresses product liability
and rights for consumers.The Act allows
consumers to claim compensation for harm caused by defective products,
establishing a clearer framework for holding manufacturers accountable.
4.
Judicial
Precedents: Indian courts ensure
that consumers can seek redress for harm caused by defective goods. For
instance, in Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
(2009), the Supreme Court upheld the principle of negligence in medical
malpractice, aligning with the broader understanding of tort law as
articulated in Donoghue.
CONCLUSION
The value of Donoghue v Stevenson comes from
its groundbreaking influence on the law of negligence and tort more broadly.
Prior to this case, claims for harm typically arose in the context of a
contractual relationship. Donoghue paved
a path for understanding that a duty of care can exist outside of any
contractual promise
In addition, Justice Atkin articulated the
"neighbour principle", from which we now define extended duties of
care that individuals and entities have to limit harm to others. The court
confirmed that an overarching duty of care owed by all individuals and entities
to all persons substantially increased the level of accountability and
liability imposed on individuals and corporate entities.
This case remains enormously influential in regard
to its impact in common law jurisdictions across the globe. It has been cited
to support the development of products liability law, expanded consumer
protection, broadened public health standards, and enhanced corporate
responsibility. It also influenced judgments of subsequent products liability
cases, including Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 (PC) and
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL) many more.
REFERENCES
·
Judgment:Donoghue
v steveson (1932)
·
Negligence
Duty of Care/Tort Law
ARTICLES
·
J.C. Smith, Peter Burns, ‘Donoghue v. Stevenson: The Not so
Golden Anniversary’ [1983], MLR 1
·
R.F.V. Heuston, ‘Donoghue v Stevenson in Retrospect’, [1957],
MLR 20(1)
KEYWORDS
Duty of care,negligence,
neighbour principle,privity of contract, law of tort
Post a Comment