LAW OF TORT

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON [1932]

CASE FACTS, NEIGHBOURING PRINCIPLE, LORD

ATIKIN’S STATEMENT, JUDGEMENT, LEGAL
PRINCIPLE

A B M KHALED ANWAR
100368
 DONOGHUE V STEVENSON [1932]
This paper will examine the case facts of the case Donoghue v Stevenson where
the tort law of negligence was established and the traditional point at which to
commence a consideration of the duty of care is the broad ‘neighbour principle’
enunciated by Lord Atkin in which he attempted to rationalise and develop the earlier
case law.

Donoghue v. Stevenson, otherwise called the 'snail in the bottle case', is a critical
case in English law. The House of Lords' decision for this situation set up the common
law tort of negligence and obliged makers to observe duty of care towards their clients.
The event of the case occurred in Paisley, Scotland in 1928. While going to a store, Ms
May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, which had obtained for her by a
companion. The bottle was later found to contain a deteriorating snail. Since the bottle
was not made of clear glass, Donoghue had devoured the majority of its substance
before she ended up noticeably mindful of the snail. She later fell sick and a doctor
diagnosed her to have gastroenteritis. Donoghue along these lines made lawful move
against Mr David Stevenson, the maker of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court
of Sessions, Scotland's most noteworthy common court, looking for £500 harms.

Donoghue couldn't sue Stevenson for breach of contract, on the grounds that a
companion had acquired the drink for her. Rather, her lawyers claimed that Stevenson
had broken an obligation of care to his purchasers and had created damage through
carelessness – a territory of common law which at the time was to a great extent
untested. Stevenson's lawyers challenged Donoghue's activity, on the premise that no
points of reference existed for such a case. They alluded to a previous case by
Donoghue's lawyer, Mullen v. AG Barr [1929], where a dead mouse was found in a
container of soda pop; judges for this situation expelled it as a result of an absence of
point of precedent. Donoghue's first appeal failed, although she was granted leave to
appeal in front of the House of Lords, which at the time still had the legal specialist to
hear redrafting cases. The main judgement, conveyed by Lord Atkin in 1932, set up that
Stevenson ought to be in charge of the betterment of people who devour his items, given
that they couldn't be inspected. The case was returned to the first court; Stevenson died
before the case was concluded and Donoghue was granted a lessened amount of
damages from his bequest.

The Donoghue v. Stevenson case created Lord Atkin's controversial 'neighbour

rule', which expanded the tort of negligence past the tortfeasor and the other party. It
brought up the issue of precisely which individuals may be influenced by negligent
activities. For Donoghue's situation she had not bought the ginger beer but rather had
gotten it as a gift; she was a neighbour as opposed to a gathering to the agreement.
 The most famous statement about duty was made by Lord Atkin in this case.
Atkin stated that “the biblical 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 omission
which you can reasonable 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 this case, it was held that the burden of proof must always be upon the injured
party to establish that the defect which caused the injury was present in the article
when it left the hands of the party whom he sues; that the defect was occasioned by the
carelessness of that party; and that the circumstances are such as to cast upon the
defender a duty to take care not to injure the pursuer. There is no presumption of
negligence in such a case as the present, nor is there any justification for applying the
maxim res ipsa loquitur. Negligence must be both averred and proved and the appeal
was allowed and later the appellant was allowed with a lump sum amount of money due
to the death of Stevenson.

The legal principle in this case at whatever point one individual is by conditions
put in such a position as to another that each one of customary sense who thought
would on the double perceive that on the off chance that he didn't utilize ordinary care
and ability in his own lead with respect to those conditions he would make peril of harm
the individual or property of another, an obligation emerges to utilize standard care and
aptitude to keep away from such threat.

In conclusion, Donoghue v Stevenson is a case of aphorisms and metaphors. It

established the principle of neighbour rule by Lord Atkin and the tort law of negligence.
The principle works fairly well when applied to the negligent interference with physical
interests. This particular case enabled the tort of negligence to escape the labyrinthine
complexity of the law prior to 1932 and also provided patterns for the development of
negligence over the decades that followed.