Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562STUDENT TEXT

One evening Mrs May Donoghue met a friend at the Wellmeadow Caf, who purchased her an iced drink made from ice-cream and ginger beer. The bottle bore the name of its manufacturer, 'D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley'. The bottle's colour hid the fact that a badly decomposed snail was inside. Mrs Donoghue had already consumed most of the ginger beer when she saw the remains of the snail being poured into her glass. Soon afterwards, she was diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.

Mrs Donoghue decided to take legal action against David Stevenson, the ginger beer manufacturer, a rare course of action in the early twentieth century. The first judge to hear this matter, Lord Moncrieff, decided in favour of Mrs Donoghue. However, the Scottish Court of Session dismissed Mrs Donoghue's claim for compensation. The only remaining court that could hear anappeal was the House of Lords in London, England. As she could not afford to pay any security in case she lost her appeal, Mrs Donoghue needed to prove she was a pauper (a poor person in need of legal charity) in order to have her case heard. This would have been a difficult decision, as she had to admit she lived in poverty.

Once her application was accepted, her legal counsel stated his arguments in front of several lords in the Committee Room overlooking the River Thames. On 26 May 1932, Lord Atkin delivered a judgment that would have a lasting impact on society, as his decision would forever establish that a manufacturer of a product owed a customer aduty of care:

LORD ATKIN:'...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.'

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

The 'duty' that Lord Atkin referred to in his decision revolved around the application of the so-called 'neighbour principle' which would establish the foundation ofnegligence lawthat is still used today. Thisprecedenthas continued to evolve and has formed the basis of modern consumer law. Hisratiodecidendiensured that manufacturers are held accountable for the damage their products cause. Over time, it has been applied to many other social and business interactions.

1. Explain why many people would not have taken legal action against a product manufacturer in the early 20th century?
2. Locate the decision Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd[1929] SC 461 and summarise the court's decision. Explain and analyse how this case was similar and different to Donoghue v Stevenson, justifying whether you believe the outcome of this case was fair.
3. Describe why Mrs Donoghue could not use existing contract and consumer law to support her legal action.
4. Analyse one positive and negative effect Donoghue v Stevenson has had on society. Ensure you consider the key stakeholders that may be affected by this area of law.