Author: Tanmeet Singh Sachdeva and University of Surrey
To the Point
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is widely regarded as the foundation of modern negligence law in the United Kingdom and across many common law jurisdictions. Decided in 1932 by the House of Lords, the case created the legal doctrine of a general duty of care, even where no contractual relationship existed between the parties. It introduced the principle that individuals and companies must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably cause harm to others—essentially giving rise to modern product liability and negligence doctrines.
Use of Legal Jargon
- Negligence: A breach of duty that causes harm, either through acts or omissions.
- Foreseeability: The ability to reasonably predict that an action could cause harm.
- Proximity: Closeness in relationship or circumstance sufficient to establish a duty.
- Tort: A civil wrong that causes harm or loss, resulting in legal liability.
- Privity of Contract: A doctrine that traditionally limited liability to contractual parties.
- Ratio Decidendi: The legal reasoning or principle on which a case is decided.
- Obiter Dicta: Statements made by a judge that are not essential to the decision.
- Product Liability: The area of law in which manufacturers and sellers are held liable for putting a defective product into the hands of a consumer.
The Proof
Factual Background
On August 26, 1928, May Donoghue went to the café. Her friend ordered a ginger beer for her. The drink came in a dark, opaque glass bottle manufactured by David Stevenson. After consuming some of the drink, Donoghue poured the remainder into a glass and discovered a decomposed snail in the bottle. As a result, she claimed to have suffered severe gastroenteritis and psychological shock.
Donoghue could not sue under contract law, as her friend had bought the drink.
Procedural History
The case reached the House of Lords, the highest appellate court in the UK at the time. The key legal question was whether Stevenson, the manufacturer, owed a duty of care to Donoghue, a third-party consumer, despite the absence of a direct contractual relationship.
Abstract
Lord Atkin established the neighbour principle defined in law as someone who is “so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.”
This marked a seismic shift from existing doctrines, which largely confined liability to contractual relationships or clear physical proximity. With this decision, the House of Lords expanded the scope of legal duty and made it possible for injured parties to claim damages based on a general duty of care.
Donoghue v Stevenson effectively became the foundation of negligence law, leading to further development and codification in cases and statutes involving consumer protection, medical negligence, and professional liability.
Case Laws
🔹 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
The Lords, particularly Lord Atkin, focused on foreseeability and proximity rather than contract. It was held that manufacturers must ensure that products placed on the market are free from harmful defects that could reasonably be foreseen to cause harm.
🔹 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
This case further refined the duty of care by introducing a three-fold test:
- Foreseeability of harm
- Proximity of relationship
- Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable
Caparo limited the potentially wide-reaching implications of Donoghue and ensured that the imposition of liability remained controlled.
🔹 Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728
The court expanded Donoghue’s neighbour principle to include public authorities, ruling that a local council could be liable for failing to inspect building foundations. However, this broader duty was later curtailed.
Conclusion
Donoghue v Stevenson is not just a cornerstone of negligence law; it is a case that transformed the legal landscape of civil liability. Before this judgment, tort law was largely fragmented and confined to specific relationships like contracts or physical trespass. Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle introduced a universal moral and legal standard: that each person must take reasonable care to avoid actions likely to injure others.
Its legacy is both profound and enduring. The case paved the way for legal redress in consumer protection, medical malpractice, environmental liability, and countless other fields. Today, the principles espoused in Donoghue inform legislative frameworks across the world, from the UK’s Consumer Protection Act 1987 to global standards in common law jurisdictions.
It was a recognition that justice requires access to remedies for harm, even where no formal relationship exists—thus reinforcing not only legal accountability but also social responsibility.
FAQ
Q: What is the “neighbour principle”?
A: It states that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that can reasonably be foreseen to harm those closely and directly affected by their actions—their “neighbours.”
Q: Was there a contract between Donoghue and the manufacturer?
A: No.
Q: Why is foreseeability important in this case?
A: Foreseeability helps establish that the manufacturer should have reasonably anticipated that a failure in product safety could harm the consumer. It is a key component in determining duty of care.
Q: What if Donoghue had seen the snail before drinking?
A: The claim would likely have failed, as no harm (injury) would have occurred.
Q: How has this case influenced modern law?
A:. It is cited globally and informs laws governing product liability, professional negligence, and public authority accountability.
Q: Is this principle still valid today?
A: Absolutely. While courts have refined the scope and application (e.g., through Caparo), the duty of care principle from Donoghue v Stevenson remains central to modern tort law.
Q: What was the final ruling?
A: Stevenson died before a full trial, but the ruling established the legal precedent.
