Donoghue v.

Stevenson (1932)

Issue:

The main question arising for consideration in this case is whether in any given case the
manufacturer owes the consumer a duty of care in respect of the product and whether the
consumer who has not directly purchased the product from the manufacturer can sustain an
action for negligence when he has been injured by the product. In particular, the court had to
realize whether Mr. Stevenson who produced the ginger beer indeed breached duty of care
towards Mrs. Donoghue, who has drunken the ginger beer and became ill from its contents.

Rule:

The rule at issue for this case is the duty of care in the tort law. The court used the rule of the
neighbour principle formulated by Lord Atkin, that is, people should be cautious enough not
to cause harm to the neighbours in so far as it can be reasonably predicted. This principle
goes further than duties in tort growing out of a contractual relationship; it applies the
principle to cases where no contractual relationship exists. This case has set benchmark in the
tort law.

Application:

Facts of the case:

Mrs. Donoghue was accompanied by her friend to a café in Paisley Scotland, and that's where
the case has happened in August 1928. Her friend bought a bottle of ginger beer made by Mr.
Stevenson. The bottle was completely opaque and after having quaffed a portion of the drink
Mrs. Donoghue found a dead snail in the bottle. This for instance led to her having severe
medical conditions, gastroenteritis and shock. She then sued the manufacturer.

Mrs. Donoghue wanted to sue and asked for compensation for her illness. However, she had
one major problem, ginger beer never constituted the subject of the tort of negligence because
she never became the direct buyer and thus she had no excuse of suing for breach of contract
because she only contracted with the café owner. Instead, she brought an action in the law of
tort and labeled Mr. Stevenson a negligent manufacturer. This was anchored on her argument
that he was negligient in providing the safety of a product he sold which lead to her suffering
ILLNESS. This in the case received rulings in several courts until it reached the House of
Lords. The court judgement went in favour of Mrs. Donoghue and declared that Mr.
Stevenson was under a legal liability to protect the life of Mrs. Donoghue by providing her a
pure consumer product ie ginger beer. Many cases of this class can be traced to the judgment
of Lord Atkin stating that a manufacturer owes the direct consumer a duty of care to provide
a product fit for human consumption. He said the manufacturer should be aware that a failure
to do so may lead to harm of a person who takes the product.

The court outlined the following key points:

Duty of Care:

The manufacturer has the responsibility of ensuring that whoever consumes the product gets
a favourable outcome. This was rather a radical shift from the earlier legal provisions’ reasons
for holding a party legally accountable where a contractual relationship existed.

Foreseeability:

The fact that a defective product could give harm to a consumer was not difficult to fathom.
As a result, the manufacturer has the responsibility to diligence necessary to guarantee safety
of the product.

Proximity:

It is well understood that even in the absence of a contract the relationship between the
manufacturer and the consumer is close enough to give rise to a duty to act carefully.

Impact on Tort Law:

Establishment of Precedent: The case should be familiar as it has been used in many
subsequent cases to underscore both duty of care and negligence.

Consumer Protection: This decision led to awakening of consumer protection and

organization needed to ensure that manufacturers were held accountable. It supported the
creation of the modern regulations concerning consumer protection and their rights.

Expansion of Liability: The ruling further opened up new legal liabilities that manufacturers
were forced to assume more responsibility towards actual safety and quality assurance of
their products.

Legal Framework: The case later formed a basis for future trends of tort law such as the
existence of the consumer protection laws and the setting of product liability.

Conclusion:
The ruling in Donoghue v. Stevenson has had far-reaching consequences for the growth of the
tort of negligence. It affirmed the manufacturers’ legal liability to make sure their product is
safe in the hands of the consumers, but not limited to the consumers who directly bought the
product. Impact on Tort Law: Ideas from the Case of: Donoghue v. They continue to directly
shape the present tort law and consumer protection regulations today which are advanced by
Stevenson. Other legal systems around the world have developed similar doctrines as a result
of the realities of economic and market industrialisation that has made it mandatory for
manufacturers to be very careful when putting products in the market. It is still commonly
used in discourses related to manufacturing morality, manufacturers’ obligations, and
customers’ entitlement. In conclusion, Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932:31 is a famous critical
legal educational case that not only framed normative understandings of critical legal
principles but also realigned consumer rights and manufacture responsibilities. On one hand,
the House of Lords similarly recognized in the negligence cases that a duty of care was not
limited to contractual obligations, which then constituted strong foundation from which to
deal with negligence claims and safe guard consumers in the new economy. Holding has
remained as a significant case in the analysis and application of tort law to the present day,
still as a prime reference material in the principle of accountability in product safety.

The consequences of the case of Donoghue v. Consequently, Stevenson extend beyond tort
law and indeed the law itself. The case is relevant when discussing ethical responsibilities of
corporations, the role and influence of the manufacturing industry as well as corporations’
relations with consumers. It brings some intriguing issues relating to the relative protection of
consumers and business entities resulting to continuous discussions over the amount of
responsibility in different sectors. The case has laid foundation to principles that govern
current legal systems in various parts across the world. Duty of care has been similarly
defined in many jurisdictions, indicating that the concept of Legal responsibility is quickly
gaining ground as a market reformulation. The case is useful in different ways to demonstrate
that the law needs to evolve with time regarding the expectations that the society has on
safety and or consumers.