Donoghue v Stevenson

Isn't it funny to think that a case involving a dead snail in a ginger beer bottle could change the course of legal history?

Well, that is exactly what happened in 1932 when Lord Atkin in the House of Lords handed down a judgment that would become one of the most significant cases in history, the case of Donoghue and Stevenson.

In the short video, we will cover what the case is about, why it is so important to students of law and business around the globe. Let's start with the events that led to this case.

On the evening of Sunday, the 26th of August 1928, Mrs. May Donoghue took a 30-minute train tram, a tram ride from Glasgow to Paisley.

She met a friend at the Well Meadow Cafe.

Her friend purchased her a Scotsman on ice, a mix of ice cream and ginger beer.

The owner of the cafe, Francis Mingella, brought out a bowl of ice cream and poured some of the ginger beer from the bottle onto her ice cream. Later, when Mrs. Donoghue's friend poured the remainder of the ginger beer onto her ice onto her ice cream, out popped the remains of a decomposing snail.

Mrs. Donoghue became very ill and was diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. It was impossible for Mrs. Donoghue to know there was a snail in the ginger beer bottle, as the ginger beer bottle was a dark opaque color.

The bottle had the name of its manufacturer on it, D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley. Let's now look at what legal action Mrs. Donoghue could take.

Mrs. Donoghue wanted to take legal action against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, D. Stevenson, but faced several problems. One, it was Mrs. Donoghue's friend who had bought her the drink, not Mrs. Donoghue, so she could not argue there was a breach of contract.

Two, it was unlikely she could prove Stevenson had sold her a dangerous product or knew that his products were defective. Donoghue subsequently contacted and instructed Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city counselor, whose firm had acted for the claimants in a case with similar facts, the case of Mullen and A.G. Barr and Co. Limited, less than three weeks earlier.

In short, the Mullen case involved several children falling ill after finding dead mice in their bottles of ginger beer. The case failed to establish negligence unless there was a contract between the two parties, or the consumer was not told the product was potentially dangerous.

Despite the failure in the Mullen case, her solicitor, Mr. Walter Leechman, claimed Stevenson owed a duty to his consumers to take reasonable care to ensure his products were safe for human consumption.

Now, let's move on to how the case moved from the courts in Scotland to the judgment by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

The first judge in this case, Lord Moncrieff, decided in favor of Mrs. Donoghue, but the Scottish Court of Session, Second Division, dismissed Mrs. Donoghue's argument that she was owed a duty of care.

The only court that was able to hear an appeal was the House of Lords in London. As Mrs. Donoghue did not have the money to pay any security if she lost her appeal, she needed to prove she was a very poor person in need of legal charity to have her case heard.

In the House of Lords on 26th of May 1932, Lord Atkin delivered a judgment that would have a lasting impact. His judgment established that a manufacturer of a product owed a consumer a duty of care.

As for Mrs. Donoghue, David Stevenson died before the House of Lords handed down their decision, his executors paid Mrs. Donoghue 200 pounds. This amount would be about 22,000 Australian dollars today.

You might still be wondering why is this is this decision so important? While it is noted that the existence of the snail was assumed as Donoghue's factual claims were never actually tested in court.

The ruling established the civil law tort of negligence, that's T.O.R.T., tort. This is separate to other areas of of law, such as contract or criminal law, that requires businesses to observe a duty of care towards their customers in contract or criminal law.

There are three key things we can take from this case. First, negligence is a tort, you don't need to prove a contractual relationship to take action, to take legal action.

Second, duty of care, manufacturers have a duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm to the consumers or users of their product.

And third, the neighbor principle. In his judgment, Lord Atkin articulated what is known as the neighbor principle, that is, that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. When looking to establish an underlying foundation, determining duties owed between people or organizations, Lord Atkin turned to the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan as a basis for what would become known as the neighbor principle.

So who is my neighbor? Lord Atkin said your neighbor is persons who might be so closely and directly affected by my act that I could reasonably foresee them being affected by it.

And there we have an overview of the case of the dead snail in the ginger beer bottle.