This material is available only on bibliotequer
5 Feb 2021 
Claude 
Throughout the evening, Ms. Donoghue’s friend poured the remaining ginger and a dead snail also floated to the glass. Having consumed almost the full bottle of ginger beer, Ms. Donoghue stated that she felt sick from seeing this and informed about extreme pain. Moreover, she had to consult a doctor in a couple of days and had to take various medical treatments in September, 1928; the physician diagnosed her with gastroenteritis and shock. Ms. Donoghue’s friend noted the contact information of the manufacturer – a company owned by David Stevenson which was producing both ginger beer and lemonade. Ms. Donoghue retained the lawyer’s services who previously acted in similar cases against manufacturers.
Initial Claim
Ms. Donoghue was looking for compensation from the café owner and Mr. Stevenson for the aforementioned shock and illness that she had to suffer because of dead snail contained in her ginger beer. The initial lawsuit was firstly heard in the Court of Session (Outer House) in 1929, where the Plaintiff’s statement was that Mr. Stevenson’s operational system was defective and the reused bottles were kept in unsanitary places that allowed snails to enter the bottles from outside. Moreover, it was discovered that the snails were frequently found in the near surroundings of the production facility.
Considering the fact that the Defendant knew or should have known about the presence of snails and the danger of small animals, the question of reasonable care was addressed to the Defendant regarding the efficient protection and inspection systems within the premises. Further, the Plaintiff’s position was that Mr. Stevenson had to additionally inspect the bottles prior to filling and sealing them. Therefore, by failing to do so, the Defendant neglected the duty of care and allowed the ginger beer with the snail inside to be placed for sale in the public facility. In the event that the Defendant and his employees had maintained the standard of care, the Plaintiff would not have suffered the detrimental illness.
It
The decision was delivered on June 27, 1930 by Lord Moncrieff which implied the liability for negligence in production and preparation of products used for human consumption: “I am unhesitatingly of opinion that those who deal with the production of food or produce fluids for beverage purposes ought not to be heard to plead ignorance of the active danger which will be associated with their products, as a consequence of any imperfect observation of cleanliness at any stage in the course of the process of manufacture…” and “Tainted food when offered for sale is, in my opinion, amongst the most subtly potent of ‘dangerous goods’, and to deal in or prepare such food is highly relevant to infer a duty. I fail to see why the fact that the danger has been introduced by an act of negligence and does not advertise itself, should release the negligent manufacturer from a duty, or afford him a supplementary defence.“ (Scottish Law Reports, 2012)
This decision was also supported with the following factors explaining the liability of the Defendant: the Defendant should have had a general duty to the Plaintiff but due to the Defendant’s failure and breach, the Plaintiff experienced a health risk; moreover, the Defendant is liable that he did not foresee the potential risk. Secondly, the Plaintiff was able to provide a clear evidence that her illness was caused by the Defendant’s breach of duty.
Lord Moncrieff’s decision was unprecedented within English or Scottish case law which previously required the involved parties to have a contractual relationship between each other; that is, all legal proceedings regarding injury liability resulting from products which were not deemed to be dangerous had to involve a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Appeal
Mr. Stevenson appealed Lord Moncrieff’s judgment to the upper division Court of Session (Inner House) in 1931. The case was reviewed by the same four judges who relied on similar precedent, Mullen v AG Barr & Co. Ltd. [1929], and overruled the first judgment concluding that the manufacturer could not be responsible for any injuries to a person who was not bound by contract.
The basis of the appeal judgment was that Ms. Donoghue was not contracted with Mr. Stevenson as the ginger beer was bought from the café owner which makes the café a party to a sale contract with the manufacturer. Ms. Donoghue was aware that suing the café would not be as beneficial as suing the company. Moreover, the café was not found liable or negligent in serving the beer in previous proceedings. Eventually, it was concluded that the law does not have any options for suing the manufacturer due to the lack of relationships between the consumer and the manufacturer.
House of Lords
The Plaintiff, Ms. Donoghue, was not satisfied with Mr. Stevenson’s successful Appeal and proceeded with Appeal to the House of Lords, which was the highest court in the United Kingdom and which is an equivalent of today’s Supreme Court of Canada. The security costs were previously waived within the Court of Session after Ms. Donoghue’s statement: “I am very poor, and am not worth in all the world the sum of five pounds…” (Scottish Law Reports, 2012) following which the court did not have a deposit of payment in the event the Plaintiff loses her claim. Further, the Plaintiff’s lawyer agreed to work pro bono, meaning that there are no legal costs associated with his representation of Ms. Donoghue.
The appeal proceedings started on December 10th, 1931 at the Palace of Westminster, City of London and was heard by five lords: Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Macmillan, Lord Thankerton and Lord Buckmaster. The Plaintiff’s representatives appealed to the House of Lords with the following statement: “Where anyone performs an operation, such as the manufacture of an article, a relationship of duty independent of contract may in certain circumstance arise, the extent of such duty in every case depending on the particular circumstances of the case.” (Scottish Law Reports, 2012)
Having considered the appeal statement, the Defendant’s lawyer responded that Mr. Stevenson provided and took reasonable care in manufacturing process but was not able to examine the content since the bottles were not transparent and he or his employees could not see through the bottle. Additionally, the Defendant’s team relied on their previous successful appeal and referred to the established principles of Scottish and English law which provides the protection for the manufacturer of a product against anyone with whom he or she does not have a contractual relation: “…nor is there any hint of any such exception in any reported case. There is here no suggestion of a trap, and there are no averments to support it…”. The Defence also concluded that Mr. Stevenson had no knowledge to believe that ginger beer may become dangerous and he know that this drink may harm the consumers. Lastly, they stated that there is no similar cases or precedents reflecting the position of Plaintiff and therefore her claim does not have a basis in common law.
Judgment
After the House had taken time for consideration, it took Lords five months to finalize the judgment and present it on May 26, 1932. All five Lords provided their views and opinions on subject hearing but Lord Atkin’s speech became a new established principle in Scottish and English law. Lord Atkin’s decision was focused on a moral aspect which eventually became a Neighbour Principle: “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 can 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 reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
In other words, Lord Atkin’s decision formed a rule that Mr. Stevenson should have ensured that Ms. Donoghue’s bottled beer would be safe for use. Since Mr. Stevenson produced and bottled the beer, he must be responsible for failure to protect his “neighbour” (the Plaintiff) against harm. Ms. Donoghue was allowed to commence another action to get the compensation from the Defendant and had to prove that the snail in her ginger beer caused the sickness and damaged her health. Ms. Stevenson died in 1932 and the claim was settled outside the court between parties and their representatives.
New Precedent
As soon as the judgment was announced, the manufacturers started owing a duty of care to the final consumer of their product, especially in situations when the product cannot be examined due to the way of packaging or wrapping. No need of contractual relationship is required in case the consumer decides to sue the manufacturer for negligence. In Donoghue v. Stevenson case, the Plaintiff received a right to “reach around” the distributor or sales facility and sue the manufacturer directly regardless of the existence of contract.