Donoghue v Stevenson

Factual and Procedural Background

On 26 August 1928, the Appellant consumed part of a bottle of ginger-beer that a friend had purchased from a retailer in The City. The dark, opaque, factory-sealed bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail that were not discoverable until most of the liquid had been drunk. The Appellant alleged that she suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result.

She sued the manufacturer (Respondent) in the Court of Session, contending that, as a producer of food placed in a non-inspectable container, the Respondent owed her a duty of care to ensure that the product was free from noxious matter. A Lord Ordinary rejected the Respondent’s plea in law and allowed proof, but the Second Division of the Court of Session recalled that interlocutor and dismissed the action. The matter came before the House of Lords on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under the common law of both Scotland and England, a manufacturer who sells a food or drink product in a sealed container owes a duty of care in tort (delict) to the ultimate consumer who is not a party to any contract of sale.
2. If such a duty exists, whether the Appellant’s averments of negligent manufacture are relevant and sufficient to warrant a proof of facts.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sealed, opaque bottle excluded any reasonable opportunity for the retailer or consumer to inspect the contents; therefore the manufacturer stood in a direct relationship to the consumer and owed a duty of care.
• The presence of a decomposed snail demonstrated a lack of reasonable care in the manufacturing process, infringing that duty.
• Existing authority, particularly George v. Skivington and the dicta of Judge Atkin in Heaven v. Pender, supported liability where a product, if negligently prepared, foreseeably endangered users.

Respondent's Arguments

• At common law no duty of care is owed by a manufacturer to a consumer with whom he has no contractual relationship, as affirmed in Winterbottom v. Wright and similar decisions.
• Duties to third parties arise only in narrow “exceptions” (e.g., inherently dangerous goods or known defects). Ginger-beer is not inherently dangerous, and no knowledge of danger was alleged.
• Adopting the Appellant’s theory would expose manufacturers to unlimited liability and “might be called on to meet claims … which they could not possibly investigate or answer.”

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The House was divided. Judge Buckmaster and Judge Tomlin concluded that established common-law principles confined a manufacturer’s liability to parties with whom he had contracted, save for narrow categories (inherently dangerous items or known defects). They considered Winterbottom and allied cases controlling authority and characterised the Appellant’s theory as an unprincipled extension that would impose limitless obligations.

The majority—Judge Atkin, Judge Thankerton and Judge Macmillan—adopted a broader view of negligence. Drawing on the “neighbour principle” articulated in Heaven v. Pender, they held that:

• A manufacturer who places food or drink on the market in a sealed container that precludes intermediate inspection must reasonably foresee that failure to exercise care may directly injure the ultimate consumer.
• Such foreseeability establishes sufficient proximity to create a duty of care owed to that consumer, regardless of contractual privity.
• The Appellant’s pleadings, if proved, disclose negligence adequate to invoke that duty: improper storage allowed snails access to bottles, and no adequate inspection system existed.
• The earlier English decisions either involved different factual matrices (e.g., opportunities for intermediate examination) or were explicable on grounds no longer consistent with modern conditions.

Accordingly, the majority reasoned that to deny a remedy would leave the consumer without recourse despite clear moral wrongdoing, an outcome incompatible with common-law principles responsive to current social realities.

Holding and Implications

HELD: The appeal was allowed. The interlocutor of the Second Division of the Court of Session was reversed; the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary (allowing a proof) was restored; and the cause was remitted for trial of the facts, with costs awarded to the Appellant.

Implications: The decision recognises a general common-law duty of care owed by manufacturers to ultimate consumers when products are supplied in forms that preclude reasonable intermediate examination. It establishes the modern “neighbour principle” as the cornerstone of negligence liability, extending protection beyond contractual boundaries and shaping subsequent product-liability jurisprudence.