Donoghue v Stevenson

Issue: Whether the defendant (manufacturer of ginger beer) owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff (Mrs. Donoghue) in the absence of contractual relations to establish a case law.

Rule: The first principle here is that of privity of contract. The principle of privity of
contract refers to a relation between the parties in a contract that allows them to sue each
other for breach of contract but prevents a third party from doing so. The second principle
being dealt with here is the first element of negligence that is duty of care. Duty of care is
defined under tort law as a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring
adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could
foreseeably harm others.

Analysis: There were arguments put forth from both concerning parties. One of which on
the side of the defendant argued that the absence of contract did not make him liable for
the damages caused to the plaintiff as a direct result of their drink, they argued thus under
the privity of contract. The lack of such a contract after much arguments gave rise to a
new principle by Lord Atkins, to establish the landmark of the “Neighboring principle”,
which states that a person should take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that
he/she can reasonably foresee as likely to cause injury to the neighbor ( a person in close
proximity). Furthermore, he also ruled that the defendant was negligent and any
manufacturer under the rule of the neighboring principle, owed a duty of care to any
consumer to ensure that their products would not be a direct cause for damage.

According to Lord Atkin’s ratio Decendi, “a manufacturer of products, which he sells…

to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him… owes a duty to the
consumer to take reasonable care”. The neighboring principle helped established a
relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer which then required a duty of
care on the part of the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The court finally held that there need not be a contractual relationship, or
privity, in order for the final consumer to sue in negligence and that manufacturers owe
the final consumer of the product a duty of care ensuring the products integrity. It also
accepted “The Neighboring Principle”, put forward by Lord Atkin.