Most negligence lawyers working in a common law jurisdiction will have heard of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562. It is one of the most famous cases in Scots law and, through its journey to the House of Lords, also in the law of England and Wales. The case now forms the basis for negligence law throughout most of the common law world.
What Was Donoghue v. Stevenson About?
Donoghue visited a café with a friend, who purchased a bottle of ginger beer. Donoghue drank a glass full of the bottle's contents and was in the process of refilling her glass when the decomposing remains of a snail were discovered in the bottle. Because the bottle's glass was dark, it was not possible to see the snail inside until the contents were poured out.
As a result of the experience, and having drank some of the ginger beer already, Donoghue suffered shock and gastroenteritis. She then filed a negligence claim against Stevenson, the ginger beer's manufacturer, on the grounds of breach of duty of care.
It should be noted that as it was Donoghue's friend who had purchased the ginger beer and not Donoghue herself, she had to rely on the tort of negligence for her suit as it would have been impossible to bring an action for breach of contract; there being no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson.
The Effect on Negligence Cases
Donoghue v. Stevenson has had a major effect on negligence case law by giving clear instructions on establishing whether a duty of care exists between two parties. In deciding the case, the House of Lords established the 'neighbour principle' for determining whether a claimant was a “reasonably foreseeable victim”.
What is the Neighbour Principle?
The neighbour principle essentially states that if a given negligence case is to be successful, the proximity of the claimant to the defendant must not be too remote. It is based on the Christian law rule to “love thy neighbour” and was originally stated as: “[One must] take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
The question is then “who is a neighbour”? This is the issue of proximity. The Court reasoned that any person who be “so closely and directly affected” by any breach of the duty of care that they should reasonably be “in contemplation” by the defendant at the time the act or omission takes place. In other words, the end consumer should be in the mind of a drinks manufacturer when the drinks in question are produced.
How is a Duty of Care Now Established in Negligence Claims?
The rule in Donoghue v. Stevenson has been refined since its inception by decades of negligence cases. Now, whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation would be determined by the decision in Caparo v. Dickman.
The case of Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 retains the requirement that negligence is reliant on a duty of care but has summarised the refined parameters for establishing whether such a duty exists. Under the new rules, the existence of a duty states will depend on three factors:
- the foreseeability of damage occurring;
- the proximity of the relationship between the claimant and defendant; and
- whether it is just in the circumstances to impose a duty of care.
Donoghue v. Stevenson was a landmark case that established a set of simple parameters for determining not only whether an end consumer had a right to compensation for injury and loss resulting from a defective product, but also whether a duty of care existed in all cases of negligence. Its influence has shaped the common law tort of negligence ever since and although it has now been superseded by newer case law and statutes, its influence is still felt today.
Zoe Kirk-Robinson - Zoë Kirk-Robinson is a freelance writer/artist specialising in legal writing, internet technology and creative writing. She holds a ...
Join the Conversation