Donoghue v Stevenson

The proof of liability

1. Res ipsa loquitur(the thing speaks for itself)
In tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs to meet their burden of
proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can
create assumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the
harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the
object that caused the harm was under the defendant’s control, and that
there are no other plausible explanations.
Test to Res ipsa loquitor-

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without
negligence
2. It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant’s control
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause

As the presence of a snail in a ginger beer bottle is not a circumstance that

generally happens without negligence and the presence of decomposed body
of the snail was solely in the control of the defendant and the plaintiff could
not have possibly contributed towards the cause so the burden of proof does
not solely lie on the plaintiff.
Maina & Others v.Niranjan Singh & Others
Byrne v Boadle

2. Consumer Protection Act

In this situation even though there is an absence of a direct contract the
plaintiff have the right to seek redressal under consumer protection act
2019.
So the defence of privity of contract which comes under section2 (d) of
the Indian contract act is not valid.

The right to redress – to receive a fair settlement of just claims,

including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or
unsatisfactory services.
Product liability: Any person who foreseeably could have been injured
by a defective product can recover for his or her injuries, as long as the
product was sold to someone.
3. Test for Duty of Care.
As identified by the house of lords in the case Caparo industries vs Dickman
duty of care can be proven if there was a required consideration of the
reasonable foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the proximity of the
relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was established, and
whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty in all the
circumstances.
As in the case Donoghue vs Stevenson there existed the reasonable
foreseeability as the shock and the Gastro enteritis both are reasonable reaction
of presence of a decomposed snail in a drink. The proximity of relation is also
present as Donoghue was a consumer. Also the duty of manufacturer is fair, just
and reasonable in all the circumstances in the following situation. So this being
the case, there was a duty of care that was present on the part of defendant
towards the plaintiff.
As stated the bottle was opaque in nature and to identify the presence of a snail
was not foreseeable on the part of the well meadow café as it was tightly sealed
and come in as is condition from the manufacturer so there is no duty of care
that exists on the behalf the café. So, the point of contributory negligence is out
of question.
Proof of negligence
In the case Kishore Lal v. chairman, ESI Corporation the apex court
opined that for the tort of the negligence to arise there must exist
1) Existence of duty to take care,
2) Failure to maintain that standard of care
3) Damage suffered on account of breach of duty
In the following case the duty of care lies with the manufactures as stated
above. There was also a failure on behalf of the manufacturer to maintain the
standard of care and the damage that was suffered on account of the plaintiff
was the direct result of the breach of duty of care by Mr Stevenson.
So as it is clear that there was negligent behaviour on part of Mr Stevenson
Therefore the sole liability will also lie with the defendant.