4th Semester Cia 3 Law and Eco

DEPARTMENT- SCHOOL OF LAW
ACADEMIC YEAR- 2022-2023

CIA-3
Law and economics
CASE ANALYSIS:
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
CLASS- 4BALLB
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. LAKSHAY SHARMA KUMARI PRAGATI
(20213076)
Summary- Mrs Donoghue went to the shop with a friend who bought her a bottle of ginger
beer. Ginger beer had a rotten snail. Ms Donoghue suffered personal injuries as a result of
this and went on to sue the manufacturer which was successful. This case led to the
introduction of the modern law of negligence and neighbourly inspections.
Facts- On August 26, 1928, Mr. Minchella for his friend, Mrs. Donoghue, the plaintiff,
bought a beer bottle at Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley (Scotland). A bottle of ginger beer was
made of clear black glass, and there was no reason to suspect that the bottle might contain
anything other than ginger beer.
After consuming about half the contents of the bottle, when all the ginger beer was poured
into a jar, the rotten snail remains floated on the surface. The sight of nausea associated with
the effects of swallowing the bottle-fed dirt caused shock and severe gastro-enteritis to the
complainant.
The case was first filed in the Second Division of Sessions Court of Scotland when a
spokesman was issued by Lord Ordinary to obtain evidence after a good reason for the
applicant's action was found. But later, another co-ordinator was released recalling the
previous interlocutor and the action was dismissed. An appeal was then lodged with the
House of lords.
Issues- The following issues were raised in this case:
i. Did the ginger beer producer know about the defect of the product that made it unfit
for consumption and was it hidden from in the consumer?
ii. Can the product be classified as dangerous and was there a failure on the part of the
manufacturer to warn the consumer of the same?
iii. Can the act of negligence be effective because there was no contract established
between the plaintiff and the manufacturer?
Legal principles-
(i) Negligence- The tort of negligence was rightly established in this case. Previously there
was a need to prove the existence of the contract and its breach to be a reckless act. However,
after the trial, he had to prove his violation of the obligation or go to extremes in compliance
with the standards of a reasonable man (there is no need for the contract) and the legal
damages that followed in order to sue for negligence.
(ii) Duty to care- The manufacturer owes the customer care service to all their potential
customers. This model has been able to implement many approaches to consumer protection
and consumer rights.
(iii) "Neighbour" rule- Lord Atkin developed the system to determine who can be called as a
neighbour. He called such people "neighbors" to which duty of care was owed by individuals.
These neighbors can be determined by the doctrine of reasonableness - only those people who
can be reasonably forseen and will be affected by the action of the person who may seek
damages in the event of that person's actions.
Judgement- The outcome of the judgment, was by 3:2 majority, decided for the appellant,
Mrs. Donoghue. Lord Atkin, leading the judgment, declared that in the present case there was
clear duty of care towards Mrs. Donoghue.
It was held that-
i. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to all end-consumers of their product
ii. The said liability could arise if and only if there was no way of intermediate
inspection of the product, and thus injury was a proximate cause of breach of duty.
iii. The manufacturer did not owe any contractual duty towards the appellant (in line
with established doctrine of privity of contract) but at the same time owing to the
appellant a general duty of care to ensure the integrity of the said product.
Analysis- By the law of the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, the key principles of duty of
care and neighbour rule were introduced.
One of the most striking features found in the reading of the first judgment of Donoghue v.
Stevenson (1932) is the main difference between the judgments of Lord Atkins and Lord
Buckmaster. They both came up with conflicting ideas from the same true story, a situation
that is a good indicator of the growing difficulty the legal system was facing.
On the other hand, there were statutes of common law as King Buckmaster said '' it cannot be
changed and added to it because any good case seems to be beyond their jurisdiction. ''
Likewise, Lord Buckmaster issued his judgment. He did not deviate from these principles.
On the other hand, there was Lord Atkin who also emphasized the important role that judges
play in protecting the rights of citizens by ensuring the development of a policy that redefined
the concept of negligence. As a result, he played a key role in changing the concept of
common law, as well as in the inevitable change in the law of tort.
One of the reasons for the decision in favor of the complainant was the need for justice even
though each law contradicted it. This case therefore highlighted the flexibility of the legal and
administrative concepts and was a good example of a situation in which justice and equity
replaces established laws.
Conclusion- The impact of Donoghue on tort law cannot be understated; it was a

watershed moment effectively establishing tort as separate from contract law. Even though
the importance of the decision of this case nowadays is reduced, the case has a lasting effect,
the significance of which lies not only in the established principles, but in the ideas that
changed the law of tort forever, and in particular the law of negligence.

4th Semester Cia 3 Law and Eco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4th Semester Cia 3 Law and Eco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4th Semester Cia 3 Law and Eco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTMENT- SCHOOL OF LAW

ACADEMIC YEAR- 2022-2023

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Issues- The following issues were raised in this case:

It was held that-

i. The manufacturer owed a duty of care to all end-consumers of their product

Conclusion- The impact of Donoghue on tort law cannot be understated; it was a

You might also like