Cite as: SC (HL) 31,  UKHL 3,  UKHL ,  AC Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL (26 May ). Donoghue v Stevenson  AC negligence, duty of care, neighbour test, tort law. Donoghue v Stevenson . Facts. Donoghue’s friend purchased her a bottle of ginger beer; The bottle contained the decomposing remains.
|Published (Last):||17 November 2004|
|PDF File Size:||2.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief.
Scottish Council of Law Reporting. Duty of candour review. Stevenson’s counsel, Wilfrid Normand KC Solicitor General for Scotland and later a Law Lord and James Clyde later the Lord President of the Court of Session and a Privy Counsellorresponded that “it is now donohue established both in English and Scottish law that in the ordinary case which this is the supplier or manufacturer of an article is under no duty to anyone with whom he is not in contractual relation”.
Donoghue v Stevenson 
Retrieved 18 September However, it was recorded on 20 December that Donoghue did not pay the costs awarded to Minghella. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from December Articles with permanently dead external links CS1 maint: If your Lordships accept the view that this pleading discloses a relevant cause of action, you will be affirming the proposition that by Scots and English law alike 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.
House of Lords transcript. It will be an advantage to make it clear that the law in this matter, as in most others, is in accordance with sound common sense.
Secondly, the case established that manufacturers have a duty of care to the end consumers or users of their products. Although the similarity in approach has been noted by commentators,  the decision is Palsgraf was not cited in either argument or in the judgments in Donoghuealthough Lord Atkin did refer to an earlier decision of Cardozo J: Lord Thankerton further argued that it was impossible “to catalogue finally, amid the ever-varying types of human relationships, those relationships in which a duty to exercise care arises apart from contract” and commented that he “should be sorry to think that the meticulous care of the manufacturer to exclude interference or inspection by the [seller] should relieve the [seller] of any responsibility to the consumer without any corresponding assumption of duty by the manufacturer”.
The manufacturer was liable.
Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562, HL
The House of Lords gave judgment on 26 May after an unusually long delay of over five months since the hearing. She continued to donoghur as a shop assistant.
In this way rules of law arise tsevenson limit the range of complainants and domoghue extent of their remedy. Back to lecture outline on duty of care. Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, when Donoghue’s friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle.
Firefighters and police officers: Archived from the original on 14 April Donoghue had moved to Maitland Street with her son, Henry, around February ; he moved out when he married inafter which she moved to Jamieson Street. Back to lecture outline on judicial precedent. Retrieved 26 September This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to stfvenson fault-based system which only required injury.
Donoghue v Stevenson  | Case Summary | Webstroke Law
It will require qualification in new circumstances. The bottle was made of dark opaque glass and D had no reason to suspect that it contained anything but pure ginger beer. Who, then, in law is my neighbour?
Donoghu and Materials 4 ed. Prior to Donoghue v Stevensonliability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly trespass to the person or indirectly trespass on the case.
The Not so Golden Anniversary”. Only limited exceptions to this rule were made in which duties were found in specific circumstances, most of which had a contractual donnoghue.
It raised the question of exactly which people might be affected by negligent actions.