THE SNAIL & THE GINGER BEER [ DONOGHUE V STEVENSON 1932 AC 5

CONCLUSION

ISSUE

RULE

THE SNAIL & THE GINGER BEER

1. WHO IS THY NEIGHBOUR ?

2. IS THE MANUFACTURER LIABLE UNDER NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY IN ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT ?

3. DOES THE MANUFACTURER HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO THE CONSUMER TO TAKE RESONABBLE CARE TAHT THE PRODUCT IS FREE FROM DEFECT THAT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE ANY INJURY?

In this case the contrsct was between Mrs. Donoghue's friend and the manufacturer as she was the one who bought the ginger beer for P, who was the ultimate consumer of the beer and D owed a duty of care under negligence for the end consumer of its product.

The manufacturer was under a conractual duty to the retailer and was in breach of that duty but he also owed a duty in tort to take resonable care not to harm the consumer.

3. Heaven v. Pender : this case was used by J. Atkinson " that a duty to take due care did arise when the person or property of one was in such proximity to the person or property of another that if due care was not taken damage might be done by the one to the other.

1. The Neighobour is someone who is closely or directly affected by the act or omissions. A duty of care is not owed to the world at large, it is owed to your neigbour.

2. Yes. the manufacturer will be held liable under negligence for injury even when there is no contract.

Case: George v. Skivington. In this case Mr. George bought hair wash for his wife, who used it and was injured by the improperly manufactrured product, he sued Skivington(manuf) and won, even though his wife was not a party to the contract.

The manufacturer owes a duty of care to the people using its product even though bought by one person and used by another.

26 May, 1932

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON

[1932] AC 562

FOUR PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN :

FACTS

JUDGEMENT

Lord Atkin:

→ “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? Receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you 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 reasonable to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or missions which are called into question.”

1. Negligence is a distinct tort : The decision setled that negligence as a tort or civil wrong, stood by itself and that it could be actionable in any circumstances in which one person suffered personal injury or physical property damamge as a direct,close, and forseeable result of the act or omission of another. Litigants do not have to rely on special relationships to prove their cases nor is negligence a dependent a dependent component of other torts.

2. A contract is not necessary : Ironically, while at the time of Donoghue, plaintiff sought to hang their hats on any contract they could, today often the opposite is the case, such as plaintiffs suing in tort for damages in order to avoid restrictions imposed upon them by contracts they have entered into.

3. Manufacturer's liablity : The actual decision in this case, or the ratio decidendi, related to the imposition of liabilty on manufacturers under certain narrow conditions. In the word of Lord Atkins : " a manufacturer of products which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimte consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibilty of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the option of reasoable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty of care to the consumer.

4. The Neighbour Principle : The definition of 'my neighbour' continues to be most contoversial aspect of Lord Atkins decision, enlarging as it does, the range of persons we ought to have in mind as neighbours and hence the range of acts or failures to act and the types of damages for which we might be held liable, should someone be injured as a consequence of our activities.

Mrs.Donoghue (P) met a friend at the Wellmeadow Cafe, at 26 August 1928, who bought her a bottle of ginger beer manufactered by David Stevenson (D). The beer was served in dark and opaque bottle. P drank half of the bottle before emptying the remaining into her glass and to her horror she found a partly decomposed snail floating on top. In consequence of the nauseating sight of the snail P sustained severe shock and illness and was diagnosed with gastroentritis and nervous shock. P claimed that the illness was the direct result of consuming the ginger beer and seeing the decomposed snail.

She sued D for negligence .

She was unsuccesfull at the trial and appealed the decison to The House Of Lords.

As a result of this case, the legal principle of duty of care was formed. All manufacturers of product bear responsibility for any damage that their product might cause, even if the sufferer did not buy the product themselves.

The parties injured by defective products can now sue in the line of duty of care, action need not be based on contractual relationship.

ANALYSIS

If the breach of duty of care is committed it should be against the immediate neighbor as defined by Lord Atkins . A manufacturer knows upon production that the overall goal of their product is to be consumed, and not simply purchased by the distributor. Though in this there was no contract between P and D , she was the ultimate consumer of the product manufactured by D and duty of care extends to the people who are the end consumers of the product even though there is no direct contractual relationship .

The manufacturer owed a duty of care, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to the harm of consumers.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions thereof which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

"[A man] is not to injure his neighbour by acts of negligence; and that certainly covers a very large field of the law. I doubt whether the whole law of tort could not be comprised in the golden maxim to do unto your neighbour as you would that he should do unto you." - Lord Atkin