Author: Manvi Tokas of the NorthCap University
INTRODUCTION
Donoghue v. Stevenson, a famous case law of the law of torts is also known by the name of ‘the snail in the bottle case’. It is a crucial case in the law of torts, which is a law for civil wrong providing its remedies. An unwritten law it has been mainly developed through various judgments passed in cases relating to different type of civil wrongs. One such landmark case is of Donoghue v. Stevenson which is a 1932 case involving duty of care and remedies for the breach of such duties or ‘tort of negligence’. The famous and crucial ‘neighbour principle’ was also developed in this case by Lord Atkin.
OVERVIEW OF TORT OF NEGLIGENCE-
Negligence as the word literally means beings negligent or perhaps careless in your conduct or actions. Tort of negligence means a careless act or negligent actions due to which some other party suffers damages. In other words, tort of negligence is a civil wrong involving a careless conduct by one party causing damages to another. For better understanding, the party who is negligent in his/her act can be referred to as the defendant and the party that is suffering from damages can be referred to as the plaintiff. Here the following aspects are to be covered and understood-
There was a duty of care on the part of the defendant
That particular care was subsequently breached
The plaintiff suffered from damages as a result
Lord Wright has stated that negligence “means more than headless or careless conduct” and connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The appellant of the case Mrs. Donoghue (Mrs. D), receives a ginger beer bottle from her friend Mr. Minchella on the day of 26 August 1928. This ginger beer bottle was bought by him from the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland. Mrs. Donoghue drank the beer. The bottle was made of dark opaque glass, which inhibited her from knowing what was inside or to have any suspicion regarding the contents of the bottle. As Mrs. D, kept on drinking, after finishing half of the bottle she could taste something weird in the bottle and as her suspicion grew, she poured the beer in a tumbler and to her surprise she found remains of a dead snail in the bottle. She went into shock from seeing such a ghastly sight, knowing the fact she had drank half of the bottle without knowing anything about the dead snail. Later, she faced some indigestion issues and slowly developed severe ‘gastro- enteritis’ problems. Agitated from the consequences she had to face, the case was first filed in the Second Division court of Session in Scotland, where Mrs. D’s petition was dismissed as the defendant was not held guilty of tort of committing any negligence. A subsequent appeal was further filed in the House of Lords.
LEGAL BACKGROUND BEFORE APPEAL IN HOUSE OF LORDS-
The previous courts dismissed the petition filed by Mrs. D, as a principle was established that as per generality of law the manufacturer was in no ‘contractual relationship’ with Mrs. D, thus there was no point holding the defendant liable for the damages cause to the plaintiff. The manufacturers were only doing their job of selling the ginger bottle and ‘did not owe any duty of care’ towards the buyers including Mrs. D. Moreover, the bottle was bought by Mr. Minchella and not Mrs. D, furthermore holding the view that there was no direct contract between the manufacturer (Stevenson) and Mrs. D. Thus, the claim of Mrs. D to get compensation was dismissed, forcing her to move to the House of Lords with an appeal.
ISSUES RAISED-
Whether the tort of negligence would be applicable if there was no contractual relation between the two parties?
Could the product be classified dangerous per se, holding failure on the part of manufacturers to hold duty of care?
ARGUMENTS
Appellant- The appellant in this case Mrs. D, held the view that the manufacturers were responsible for the damages caused to her and owed duty towards her, which was breached through the presence of dead snail in the bottle. The manufacturer made the ginger beer bottle and were responsible for keeping all the safety standards in place. They were the ones who made sure the bottles to be sealed pack making it available to be sold to large audiences. No other party was responsible for the same. All this made the manufacturing unit to be the sole responsibility holder for breaching their duty towards their product’s buyers. The manufacturers had a common and general duty towards their customers to make sure effective safety standards and measures are taken care of to make sure the customers can safely buy their products and trust them of the same. It was solely their duty to take measures to avoid falling of snail in the beer bottle and compound a proficient system of meeting health and safety standards. The appellant contended that as the manufacturer made the product with the intent to invite people to buy and drink their beers, they owed a direct duty of care towards their buyers. The case of George v. Skivington (1869) was cited which was an exceptional case where the judges held that there was duty of care to care towards parties to which there was no contractual relation with. Another case of Heaven v. Pender (1883) where it was said there always exist a duty to take some reasonable care and when that care does not take place a tort is committed.
Respondent- The respondents in this case said what they had held in previous cases that the allegations made by the appellant in the case were not maintainable. They held that the duty of care did not extend to Mrs. D as there was no contract between the two as well as the ginger beer bottle was bought by Mrs. D’s friend not her, moreover not maintaining the appellant’s constant claim of breaching duty of care. They contended that the health problems and issues caused to the appellant are not due to any negligent act by them and the same cannot be taken care of, not holding the claim of giving any compensation to Mrs. D. A very important case was cited by the respondents in the case that is the Mullen v. A G Barr & Co. Ltd., which was an exact replica of this instant case which instead of a snail involved a dead mouse. The Scottish Sessions Court dismissed the petition on the claim that as there was no contractual relation between the seller and the buyer, the former could not be responsible towards the latter for any damages caused due to the products. Another case of Blacker v. lake & Elliot was cited in which it was said when there is a contract between two parties it does not give claims to third parties.
JUDGMENT-
The final judgement of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson was in 3:2 majority, which upheld that the respondents in this instant case should be held responsible for the damages caused to the appellant. The judgment of this landmark case was leaded by Lord Atkin, who declared that there was indeed a duty of care on the part of the respondents towards the appellant. The manufacturers were responsible for the making of the bottle with the purpose of inviting people to buy and enjoy their products, this in itself produces a sense of duty which they owe towards the buyers. Even if there was no actual contractual relationship between the respondent and the appellant there is still a duty of care which is owed by the former to the latter to maintain their product integrity and to make the buyers feel safe and trusted with their products. If the same trust is broken due to their neglectful act which in turn even causes harm or injury to the other, there is absolutely a breach of duty that has been committed. This view of Lord Atkin was supported by Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan. The case thus relied on three legal principles to reach its conclusion-
Duty of care- the principle of duty of care was upheld in this case, as Lord Atkins fully supported the claim of the appellant that the manufacturers owed a duty of care to all of its buyers in general. They were responsible if any breach of duty on their part is occurred.
Tort of Negligence- The negligent act by the manufacturer was identified in the case, as they have a duty to make sure all safety measures and health standards are met by them and the dead snail which was found in the ginger beer bottle was a negligence on their part. It was thus a civil wrong by the respondent to not take utmost care and be negligent which caused harm and injury to the appellant.
The neighbour principle- This principle was developed by Lord Atkin in this case. By neighbour it meant all those people who are directly affected by someone act, which in this case was Mrs. D, as she was directly affected by the negligent act by the respondent manufacturers. In other words, the neighbours could be identified by reasonable foreseeability.
DISSENTING OPINIONS-
As the judgement was in the majority of 3:2, Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin had dissenting opinion in the given case. They did not support the other three lords and were of the opinion that there was no duty of care which was owed by the manufacturers to the Mrs. D in the case. Both the lords held that there was no direct contract between the manufacturer and Mrs. D, thus the fact that the snail was found in the bottle and health issues were faced by her was not a responsibility of the respondent to take care of. Lord Buckmaster said that it was wrong to assume that one owes such a wide liability to so many people who could possibly be affected by their products. Lord Tomlin held that holding such parties responsible for breach of duty was logically impossible and not maintainable.
CONCLUSION
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) thus is a landmark judgment in the law of torts as it helped in development of tort of negligence; by extending the way breach of duty could be understood. The famous, neighbour principle was also established in this case which widened the scope of interpreting the duty of care. This landmark case thus stands as a measure to effectively understand tort of negligence as it rightfully upheld how an individual has some duty of care to all the people who can be directly affected by their actions, and the breach of the same duty will ignite liability and responsibility on the part of the party being negligent.
FAQS
What is meant by the term tort?
Tort law governs civil wrongs where one party’s wrongful act, accidental or intentional, causes harm or loss to another. The law provides remedies in the form of monetary compensation for the injured or aggrieved party.
Explain tort of negligence?
The tort of negligence is a legal wrong arising from a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. It’s a key area within tort law, which deals with civil wrongs that cause injury or damage. Essentially, if someone’s careless actions (or inaction) cause foreseeable harm to another, they can be held liable for negligence.
Who gave the neighbour principle?
Lord Atkin gave the neighbour principle in the famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson.
