Skip to content
Judgment

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932)

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a judgment from United Kingdom on 26 May 1932. Cite it as [1932] UKHL 100. Search it by the party names, the citation [1932] UKHL 100, or United Kingdom judgment.

United KingdomPDF · 3 KB[1932] UKHL 100Judgment

united-kingdom

May 26, 1932

UNITED KINGDOM

Donoghue

v.

Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

[1932] UKHL 100

Proceeding. Judgment. United Kingdom.

Held. A manufacturer of food or drink owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer to take reasonable care that the product is free from defect likely to cause injury to health, even where there is no contract between them.

DONOGHUE v STEVENSON [1932] UKHL 100; [1932] AC 562 House of Lords 26 May 1932

Judges: Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan

Facts

On 26 August 1928 Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer from an opaque bottle bought by a friend at a cafe in Paisley. The bottle was manufactured by Stevenson. When the remainder was poured, the remains of a decomposed snail were found. Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and gastro-enteritis. She had no contract with the manufacturer. The Second Division of the Court of Session held she had no claim. She appealed to the House of Lords.

Held

By a majority of 3 to 2 (Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan; Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissenting), the appeal was allowed. A manufacturer of products which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable 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 to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

Key Principles

1. The neighbour principle. Lord Atkin: "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."

2. A duty of care in negligence can arise independently of contract.

3. The manufacturer of a product intended to reach the consumer without intermediate examination owes a duty of care to that consumer.

4. The case is the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common-law jurisdictions, including Sierra Leone.

Why It Matters in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone received the English common law. Donoghue v Stevenson is persuasive authority in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on the duty of care in negligence, product liability, and the scope of the neighbour principle. It is taught in every Sierra Leone law school and is regularly cited when the court considers whether a duty of care exists.