Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

House of lords / Supreme court

Tort Law under common law, or civil law is the regulation to protect a person from
harmful behavior imposed on them, or their possessions, reputation and privacy. Such as
physical attack, interference with someone’s property or economic interest. It focuses on liability
for unlawful or socially unacceptable acts under the legal system. Tort law allows the victim of
the harmful act to receive an award for damages or an injunction. Tort gained popularity around
the world after world war two but was very influential in Europe. Tort law seeks to punish,
appease, deter, and compensate people for the cost of accidents. A major contributor to Tort law
has been negligent damages to life and physical integrity. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson has
been one of the most influential for the development of Tort law.

In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Mrs Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer
bought by her friend at a café owned by Minghella. A decomposed snail was in the bottle and
fell out. The bottle was labeled “D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley”.
Donoghue fell ill and sued the beer manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for £500 in damages.
Mr. Stevenson defense was that the claim had no legal basis, the facts could not be substantiated,
he had not caused any injury to the claimant, and that the claim amount was excessive.
The court, House of Lords, ruled that the manufacturer owed her a duty of care which was
breached.
At the Court of Session, Inner House, May 1929, Minghella, the owner of the café was added as
a defendant against Donoghue. Donoghue appealed to the court of session indicating that
although there was no evidence of negligence, it can be presumed to be negligence as there was
an insect in the bottle. The court ruled against Donoghue on November 19th as Minghella did not
have contractual relationship with Donoghue and neither did Stevenson. Donoghue’s friend was
the purchaser of the beer. On December. 12th both Minghella and Stevenson was awarded £108
against Donoghue for claim costs from the abandoned case.
On June 27th 1930 the Outer House held that as a general principle there should be liability for
negligent food preparation.
At the Court of session Stevenson appealed the case, which was allowed.
February 25th 1931 Donoghue appealed to the House of Lords and declared an in forma pauperis
stating that she was poor and could not pay Stevenson. She lost the appeal.
The case was eventually settled out of court for £200 awarded to Donoghue in January 1933, as
Stevenson died on November 1932.
 Previous to Donoghue’s case, Manufacturers were not liable for the goods they produced.
Manufacturers being held liable for the damages caused to their consumers was slow to develop
and took many years to be established. Injuries caused by products had to be claimed under
contract of sale. The claimant had to provide evidence of a contractual arrangement for
negligence to be proven, such as purchasing an item, or paying for a service. Donoghue did not
enter into a contract with the owner of the Café. However, her friend did, but did not sustain any
damages. Furthermore, neither the friend or Donoghue had a contract with Mr. Stevenson, the
Manufacturer. A new rule of law was created in this case called “duty of care” whereby the law
placed a duty of care on the manufacturer to the ultimate consumer of the product.

3 cases surrounding tort are:

Case 1: Winterbottom v Wright (1942),

The defendant contracted with a postmaster to carry mail along a specific route. A third
party also went into agreement with the postmaster to supply horses and a mail coachman to
operate the mail coach. The mail coachman is the claimant. He was injured due to defects in the
coach. He brought a case against the defendant with whom he did not have a contract.
Did the defendant owe a duty of care to any third party contractors who became injured due to
negligence of the coach?
The claim was denied although the defendant obviously failed to keep the mail coach in safe
upkeep. The duty of care was owed to the postmaster with whom the defendant had a contract,
and that duty could not extend beyond the one contract. The claimant walked away with nothing
just like Donoghue would have, had the case not settled outside of court. Duty of care could not
extend to a third party.

Case 2: Langridge v Levy (1837)

The claimant’s father bought a gun from Levy, the Defendant. The defendant told the
claimants father that the gun was of very good quality. The claimant’s father informed the
defendant of his intentions which was to give the gun to the claimant. The gun turned out to be
defective. It exploded and mutilated the claimant’s hand.
The courts refused to extend duty of care to third parties as it would allow many people to sue.
Instead, the claimant was awarded for damages on the basis of fraud, seeing that the defendant
said the gun was of high quality, the gun should have been safe. Duty was extended to that
specific plaintiff because the defendant was aware the claimant would be using it.

Case 3: George v Skivington (1896) –Negligently manufactured Hair-wash

A husband bought a hair product for his wife from a manufacturer. The wife, who is the
plaintiff became injured by way of hair loss and scalp disorder. The plaintiff was not the
purchaser of the product therefore she was unable to make a claim under her husband’s contract
against the manufacturer. However, the court awarded her damages for fraud and indicated that
the case was similar to Landridge v Levy so the same ruling was applicable. The word fraud had
to be substituted for negligence as the plaintiff was not contracted with the Manufacturer.

The significance of Donoghue’s case in the development of the Law of negligence is that
the court used the case as an example or a guide to be considered in other similar cases. The legal
principles of this case was expanded to include all manufacturers along with the following
requirements needed to satisfy a claim of negligence: Proof that duty of care was owed by the
defendant, the owed duty was breached, and damages were incurred as a result of the breech.
The duty of care is owed to the consumer or the ultimate user, the manufacturer has to default on
the duty, and there must be damages to the consumer or the consumer’s property. The law can
also be extended to include any kind of goods or services. Third party consumers now have the
right to sue manufacturers if they breach the duty of care.

Here are 5 landmark cases flowing out of the Principle developed in Donoghue v Stevenson
1) Assumption of responsibility came about from Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)
The "Assumption of responsibility" was created as a test for the duty of care rule. It
indicated that a person can owe a duty of care by speaking and not just through actions and that a
duty is subject to a disclaimer of liability
Facts: Headley Byrne inquired of the Heller & Partners Bank for a reference for a potential
customer, Easipower ltd. Heller gave the reference "without responsibility". The reference turned
out to be false. Easipower ltd had to liquidate their assets. Headley Byrne suffered major loss as
a result.

Claim: Headley Byrne brought an action against Heller for negligence claiming that their
negligence caused Headley Byrne loss.

Issue: Does Heller and Partners owe Headley Byrne a duty of care?

Held: No duty of care was owed. Although Heller should have owed a duty of care, the reference
was given with a disclaimer "without responsibility".

Importance: Headly Byrne v Heller & Partners brought about the 'assumption of responsibility'
test to determine a duty of care. The intention of the parties has the potential to override the duty
of care, which was evident in this by the disclaimer that was given.

2) A 2 step principle to duty of care from Anns v Merton LBC (1977)

The supreme court created a shift to a principled approach to the duty of care. A 2 step
test was outlined. Proximity and policy. Proximity is first used to decide if duty is owed, then
policy is used to restrict and narrow damages.
Facts: The claimants were tenants of some flats. Their property was damaged due to structural
defects in the construction of the foundation. the Defendant, Merton LBC were responsible for
inspecting the foundation during construction to ensure the statutory requirements were met.

Claim: Anns claimed that Merton owed a duty of cate to carry out the investigation of the
construction of the flats. They believe the duty of care was breached when Merton either did not
carry out the investigation or did not demonstrate reasonable care when doing so.
Issue: Was duty of care owed by Merton LBC?
Held: Merton owed a duty of care to investigate the construction. They also owed a duty to take
reasonable care when undergoing the investigation.
Importance: To understand the reason behind the duty of care in the tort of negligence. From
Donoghue v Stevenson where duty should be viewed as a general duty and not a duty to specific
situations only. It’s important when dealing with liability of public authorities. Authorities
should also be treated with the principles of tort of negligence regardless of the statutory context.
Secondly, it is important in defining the test for a duty of care. Whether there is a sufficient
relationship of proximity such that carelessness of one party will lead to damages of the other
causing a prima facie duty of care. Then if the answer to the first question is yes, consider if
there any considerations that will limit the scope of the duty to whom its owed, or limit the
damages that breach of duty may cause.
3) A 3 step principle approach arose from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)
In Caparo v Dickman, the supreme court replaced the previous 2 step test of duty to a
three steps approach. foreseeability of harm, proximity between the claimant and defendant, and
policy.
Facts: Caparo bought shares in a company based on a public audit conducted by the defendants.
The defendant overvalued the shares of the company. As a result of the misrepresentation Caparo
lost £400,000 instead of profiting £1.3 million as expected.
Claim: Caparo claimed that Dickman owed them a duty of care in Tort of negligence which was
breached and resulted in foreseeable loss.
Issue: Does Dickman auditors owe individual shareholders a duty of care?
Held: No duty was owed.
Importance: The supreme court decided that a single general principle is not sufficient to address
duty of care and proposed 3 steps to consider. Foreseeability of damage, a relationship of
proximity or neighborhood under the law, a duty of a given scope upon one party for the benefit
of the other.

4) Concurrent liability in contract arose from Henderson v Merrett (1994)

In contract and the tort of negligence there may be concurrent liability. The claimant may
see whatever remedy is satisfactory to them, however the law is subject to any intentions that
may not be right with the parties.
Facts: In the United States, hurricanes caused major loss for insurance companies. After the
hurricanes, Investors from an insurance company were called upon to cover their share of the
losses. However, the investors sued the underwriting agents for negligent management of the
investment fund. One of the investors was Mr. Henderson and Merret Syndicates was one of the
underwriting agents.
Claim: The direct and indirect investors claimed that their managing agent owed them a duty of
care. For the indirect investors they had no contract with the defendant. Furthermore, the direct
investors had more benefit under tort law than under contract law.
Issue: Does the managing agents owe a duty of care to the direct and indirect investors
Held: The Supreme court held that a duty of care was owed to all investors direct and indirect.
Importance: The court established that there can be concurrent liability and claimants are able to
choose whatever remedy is favorable to them. Tort of negligence also became subject to contrary
contracts and in situations where the relationship of the parties is equivalent to the contract, the 3
step test is appropriate and useful.

5) Tort of negligence for psychiatric harm arose from Dulieu v White and sons (1901)
A claimant may pursue damages for psychiatric harm such as shock as was the case in the
scenario below.
Facts: A pregnant lady was working in a bar when a horse and carriage was carelessly driven
into a public house. The carriage stopped a few inches in front of the plaintiff being the pregnant
lady. The plaintiff went into severe shock and subsequently gave birth to her child prematurely.
Claim: The plaintiff brought an action against White and sons for damages from shock. White
and sons argued that injury was required to claim negligence.
Held: Dulieu was rewarded damages for the shock from the incident
Importance: Claimants were then able to recover damages for shock that arose from fear of
immediate personal injury. Claimants are also able to use this rule for horror or vexation caused
by the sight of damage being done to some other person.

The principles that were established from Donoghue v Stevenson is still applicable in
today’s world. Although times have changed people all over the world are still the same, and the
events in cases that transpired from the past are still happening today. Corporations and
individuals should be held accountable for their actions and the Tort of negligence is a way to
hold them accountable. Bystanders are also subject to witnessing injustice which can cause
trauma and damages to their mental health, therefore they too should be rewarded for having to
suffer mentally. Protection of property and economic interest must also be considered as these
too can cause deterioration of one’s mental health. And finally the ability for third party or
ultimate consumers to be protected under tort is important and should still apply in modern day
because especially where children are concerned. Parents should feel comfortable knowing, if
their children were to consume a product that is dangerous to their health the Law will be able to
offer equitable, just and fair compensation. Tort law ensures liability for unlawful or socially
unacceptable acts under the legal system and allows victims to be awarded for damages.
References

Finch, K. (n.d.). Langridge v Levy 1837 The tort of negligence eventually started to develop
from: Course Hero. Langridge v Levy 1837 The tort of negligence eventually started to
develop from | Course Hero. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p47q205/Langridge-v-Levy-
1837-The-tort-of-negligence-eventually-started-to-develop-from/.

Kozlina. (n.d.). Langridge v Levy 1837 The tort of negligence eventually started to develop from:
Course Hero. Langridge v Levy 1837 The tort of negligence eventually started to develop
from | Course Hero. https://www.coursehero.com/file/p47q205/Langridge-v-Levy-1837-
The-tort-of-negligence-eventually-started-to-develop-from/.

Leyland, P. (n.d.). ENGLISH COMMON LAW: A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION? Jura.

https://www.jura.uni-
muenchen.de/personen/k/kindler_peter/download/com_law_intro_2000.pdf.

Markesinis, B. S. (n.d.). Tort. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tort.

Winterbottom v Wright - 1842. Law Teacher. (n.d.).

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/winterbottom-v-wright.php?vref=1.