Skip to main content

CASE STUDY of DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932)

 CASE STUDY: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON (1932)

Donoghue v. Stevenson, also known as the ‘snail in the bottle case’, is a significant case in

Western law. The ruling in this case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged

businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers.

The events of the case took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928. While attending a store, Ms

May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased for her by a friend. The bottle

was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not made of clear

glass, Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail. She

later fell ill. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the

manufacturer of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland’s

highest civil court, seeking £500 damages.

Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased

the drink herself. Instead, Donoghue’s lawyers claimed that Stevenson had breached a duty

of care to his consumers and caused injury through negligence. At the time, this area of civil

law was largely untested. Stevenson’s lawyers challenged Donoghue’s action on the basis

that no precedents existed for such a claim. They referred to an earlier action by

Donoghue’s lawyer, Mullen v. AG Barr, where a dead mouse was found in a bottle of soft

drink; judges dismissed this action due to a lack of precedent.

Donoghue’s initial action failed but she was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords

(which, at the time, had the judicial authority to hear appellate cases). The leading

judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932, established that Stevenson was responsible for

the well-being of individuals who consumed his products, given that they could not be

inspected.

The case was returned to the original court. Stevenson died before the case was finalized

and Donoghue was awarded a reduced amount of damages from his estate.


The outcomes of Donoghue v. Stevenson established several legal principles and

precedents:

(1) Negligence. Firstly, the House of Lords ruling affirmed that negligence is a tort. A plaintiff

can take civil action against a respondent if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff

injury or loss of property. Previously, the plaintiff had to demonstrate some contractual

arrangement for negligence to be proven, such as the sale of an item or an agreement to

provide a service. Since Donoghue had not purchased the drink, she could prove no


contractual arrangement with Stevenson – yet Lord Atkin’s judgement established that

Stevenson was still responsible for the integrity of his product.

(2) Duty of care. Secondly, the case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to

the end consumers or users of their products.

(3) Neighbour principle. Thirdly, the Donoghue v. Stevenson case produced Lord Atkin’s

controversial “neighbour principle”, which extended the tort of negligence beyond the

tortfeasor and the immediate party. It raised the question of exactly which people might be

affected by negligent actions. In Donoghue’s case, she had not purchased the ginger beer

but had received it as a gift; she was a “neighbour” rather than a party to the contract. Atkin

said of this principle: “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 to have them in [mind] when I am [considering these] acts or omissions.”

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more