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):||23 May 2015|
|PDF File Size:||16.86 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Home Office dooghue the culmination of a donoghhe from duties of care being found in specific circumstances to using the neighbour principle as a general duty of care. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. She fell ill, and she sued qc ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. 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 The full allegations made by Donoghue were presented in five condescendences, which claimed that Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue to ensure that snails did not get into his bottles of ginger beer, but that he had breached this duty by failing to provide a system to clean bottles effectively, a system that would usually be used in the business and was necessary given that the ginger beer was intended for human consumption.
Donoghue v Stevenson
It became a limited company Donoghje Stevenson Beers and Minerals Limited on 1 July ; the family sold their shares in That intruding gastropod was as much a legal fiction as the Casual Ejector. Retrieved 26 September In separate hearings in Glasgow and Greenock Sheriff Court respectively, Orbine was successful in claiming compensation while the Mullens were not. I fail to xonoghue why the fact that the danger has been introduced by an act of negligence and does not advertise itself, should release the negligent manufacturer from a duty, or afford him a supplementary defence.
The manufacturer was sued in negligence and the court held that manufacturers could owe their ultimate donoghur a duty of care in limited circumstances.
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. The case was appealed to the House of Lords, who held by a majority that the Home Office did owe a duty of care. Manufacturers have a legal duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products if it is not possible for defects to be identified before the 193 are received.
House of Lords Comment.
Donoghue v Stevenson  | Case Summary | Webstroke Law
However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law which did not depend upon any previously recognised category of tortious claims. The legal basis for the claim now settled, the case was returned to the Court of Session for a hearing scheduled for January The case was reviewed by Frederick Pollock in a edition of Law Quarterly Reviewin which he commented that there was no doubt as ca the importance of the decision and that “a notable step has been made in enlarging and clarifying our conception of a citizen’s duty before the law The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in [mind] when I am [considering these] acts or omissions.
Ansell v Waterhouse  had established in that legal liability could arise for an act or omission “contrary to the duty which the law casts on him in the particular case” i.
This case was brought under common law. Who then atevenson law is my neighbour? In the hearing, Donoghue would have to prove the factual elements of the case that she had claimed, including that there had been a snail in the ginger beer as a result of Stevenson’s negligence and that this snail had caused her illness.
Donoghue v Stevenson 
Retrieved 8 September Thomas’ wife became seriously ill as a consequence and Thomas successfully claimed in negligence; Winchester’s behaviour had created an imminent danger which justified a finding of a duty of care.
She continued to work as a shop assistant. The Not so Golden Anniversary”.
atevenson This allegation, suggests Chapman, established itself as a legal myth; : D suffered injury when she drank the contents of a bottle of ginger beer which contained a decomposed snail. Lord Atkin commented that he did “not think a more important problem has occupied your Lordships in your judicial capacity, important both because of its bearing on public health and because of the practical test which it applies to the system under which it odnoghue.
Retrieved 20 October Features A safer conversation: Who, then, in law, is my neighbour?
Duty of 19322 review. Injuries resulting from defective products were normally claimed on the basis of a contract of sale between the seller and the consumer.
She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer. I am unhesitatingly of opinion that those who deal with the production of food or produce fluids for beverage purposes ought not to be heard to plead ignorance of the active danger which will be associated with their products, as a consequence of any imperfect observation of cleanliness at any stage in the course of the process of manufacture