| Donoghue v Stevenson | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | M'Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v. Stevenson[Note 1] |
| Decided | 26 May 1932 |
| Citations |
|
| Transcript | House of Lords transcript |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Outer House of the Court of Session ([1930] SN 117)[3] |
| Appealed from | Inner House of the Court of Session ([1930] SN 138)[3] |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | |
| Case opinions | |
| Manufacturers have a legal duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products if it is not possible for defects to be identified before the goods are received.[1]: 9 [4]: 643 | |
| Keywords | |
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.[5]
Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.[5]
Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law that did not depend upon any previously recognised category of tortious claims. This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system that only required injury.[5] This evolution was taken further in the later decision of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 when it was held that actions should not be jointly pleaded in trespass and negligence, but in negligence alone.[citation needed]
- ^ a b Heuston, R. F. V. (1957). "Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect". Modern Law Review. 20 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00421.x.
- ^ Taylor, Martin R. (2008). "The Most Famous Litigant". Donoghue v Stevenson Digital Resources. Scottish Council of Law Reporting. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
- ^ a b c Taylor, Martin R. (2004). "Mrs Donoghue's Journey". Donoghue v Stevenson Digital Resources. Scottish Council of Law Reporting. Retrieved 7 September 2012.
- ^ Patten, Keith (2012). "Personal injury: Snail trail". New Law Journal. 162 (7513): 643–645. Archived from the original on 22 April 2013. Retrieved 2 September 2012.
- ^ a b c Baksi, Catherine (3 October 2019). "Landmarks in law: the case of the dead snail in the ginger beer". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).