Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100 Case Brief

Facts 

On 26^th august 1928, Donoghue took a train to Paisley. While in Paisley, she went to the Well Meadow Café together with her friend who ordered a pear and ice for herself and a mix of ice-cream and ginger beer for Donoghue. The owner of the café brought over a sampler of ice-cream and poured ginger in it from a brown and opaque bottle. Donoghue then drunk some of the ice-cream float, however, when Donoghue friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle. Donoghue complained that she felt ill from this sight complaining of abdominal pain. She then consulted a doctor on the 28^th August and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for emergency treatment on the 16^th September. She was subsequently diagnosed to server gastroenteritis and shock. The ginger beer had been manufactured by David Stevenson, who ran a company producing both ginger beer and lemonade operating less than a mile away from the Well Meadow. The contact details for the ginger beer manufacture were on the bottle label and recorded by Donoghue friend furthermore although the bottle was labeled as Stevenson. Bottles were often reused and in the process occasionally to the incorrect manufacture. Moreover Stevenson initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Donoghue. Donoghue subsequently contacted and instructed Walter leech man a local solicitor and a city counselor whose firm had acted for claimants in a factually similar case less than three weeks earlier. Leech man issued a writ on Donoghue behave against Stevenson on 9^th April 1929. The writ claimed for damages. And the writ was lodged in court.

Issue 1

Whether a duty of care exists between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Holding

The duty of care exists.

Rationale

According to Lord Atkins, the ultimate goal of a manufacturer of products is to satisfy the consumers’ needs and to leave him in the form in which they were. Thus Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue who is the final consumer to his product and ensure that a snail could not exist in the beer hence he had breached that duty of care by failing to provide a system that could clean bottles effectively and that system was necessary because the beer was intended for human consumption. 

Issue 2

Whether neighbor principle is applicable in this instant case.

Holding

The neighbor principle was held to be applicable.

Rationale  

According to Atkin on the neighbor principle, one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would be likely injury to a neighbor. A neighbor in law is any person who is so closely and directly affected my act that ought to be prevented to avoid this injury.

Issue 3

Is there any element of negligence?

Holding

The manufacturer was held to be negligent.

Rationale

The House of Lords ruling affirmed that negligence is a tort thus the respondents negligence caused the plaintiffs injury. As much as there was no contractual relationship between the two parties, Stevenson is still responsible for the integrity of his product.

Issue 4

Whether there was any contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Holding

No contractual relationship was established.

Rationale

No contractual relationship between Stevenson and Donoghue had been established as it did not meet the validity essentials of a contract. The only contractual relationship that could be legally recognized and enforceable is that of the seller and Donoghue’s friend who was the buyer.

Judgment

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.