_edited.png)
This Article is written by Gaurang Takkar from Army Institute of Law.
Introduction
Even before entering into a law school, almost every student would have mandatorily heard about the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson which is more commonly known as the “Ginger Beer Case”. It is not only a landmark judgment but also very pertinent in the evolution of tort law, which is a branch of law worldwide. The ground-breaking implication of this judgment is the institution of the principle of duty of care in case of negligence done by a party that was suggested and later implemented by Lord Atkin to what he coded as “neighbour principle”. Negligence is a term which we all use quite often in our daily routine through our parents, teachers, and other people when we do some act in a wrong way. But in the legal sense, it has a deeper meaning and is a civil wrong that can be very harmful to individuals. Duty of care is given plenty of importance in various cases due to some particular types of fiduciary relationships between parties like that of employer and employee, doctor and patient, etc. An individual is liable for the tort of negligence if the following conditions are met:
a) There is a duty of care towards the plaintiff
b) That duty of care is breached
c) The plaintiff had to suffer damages owing to that breach
According to Winfield, “Negligence as a tort is the breach of duty to take care, resulting in damages.” (1)
Facts of the Case :
Ms. Donoghue went to Wellmeadow Case in Paisley (Scotland) with her companion on 26th August 1928. Her friend bought a bottle of ginger beer for Ms. Donoghue, the appellant. The bottle was of such type that nothing could be seen through it as it was made with a dark opaque glass. Thus, to suspect the contents of the bottle was not a possibility here. She poured half the bottle into a glass in the first serving and consumed it. When the leftover was poured into the glass, the snail was seen floating on it which caused mental shock and extreme gastro-enteritis to the appellant at the repellent site of that decomposed snail. The case was primarily filed in the Second Division of Sessions Court of Scotland where the action was dismissed and a fresh appeal was filed before the House of Lords. The scenario that prevailed before this case was that the manufacturer owed no duty towards the purchaser as there is no contractual obligation that justifies their relation to each other because the chain has many intermediaries. But in the present case, when the appellant was not able to claim compensation under breach of contract, she pleaded that the respondent, Mr. Stevenson owed a duty of care towards her (the appellant) which is breached in the instant case. Even before, many cases had till that time neglected the claims for compensation on account of breach of duty of care. The case of George vs Skinvington (2) was the lone exception. It was held in the case that there is a duty owed towards the plaintiff even if there is no contractual relationship.
Issues raised
The issues that arose in this case are:
❖ Did the manufacturer know the presence of snail inside the ginger beer bottle?
❖ Did the manufacturer fraudulently conceal the fact?
❖ Can the product be marked as dangerous and was there a failure on part of Mr. Stevenson (manufacturer) to warn the consumer of the same?
❖ Would the case of negligence lie in the case where there are no contractual obligations between the parties?
Arguments advanced by the appellant
1. The bottles of ginger beer were manufactured and sealed by the respondent’s company and thus there is sufficient relation.
2. It was the duty of the respondent to ensure the snails don’t enter the packaged commodities.
3. It is a must for any such corporation producing goods and services which directly relate to the public and their health to have in place, an efficient system for inspection of those goods before sealing and packaging and the respondent failed to fulfil both these duties.
4. The principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor (things speak for themselves) was also contended by Ms. Donoghue’s counsel as the snail in the bottle was sufficient proof and “spoke for itself” that there was negligence on part of the respondents.
5. The cases cited were as follows:
❖ George vs Skinvington (1869)
❖ Heaven vs Pender 3 (1883) where Sir Brett M.R.’s observed that “Whenever a reasonable person would foresee that harm would be caused if he did not use reasonable care and skill, he owes a duty in tort”.
❖ Dominion Natural Gas vs Collins and Perkins 4 (1909)
Arguments Advanced by Respondent
1. The respondent pleaded that the allegations put by the appellant were frivolous and exaggerated on account of previous ailments that prevailed. Hence allegations were irrelevant and unwarranted.
2. They cited the following cases to prove the point that there existed no legal basis for the filing of this complaint:-
❖ Mullen vs AG Barr & Co Ltd5 – The case was factually too similar to the case in question except for the fact that there were dead mice instead of a snail. The court of Scotland dismissed the case on grounds that there is no contractual relationship between the parties. ❖ Blacker vs Lake & Elliot Ltd6 (1912)
❖ Winterbottom vs Wright7 – The issue was whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care towards the third party and judgment was not affirmative.
Final Judgment
The judgment was given by the House of Lords, a five-judge bench consisting of Lord Buckmaster, Atkin, Tomlin, Thankerton, and Macmillian in ratio 3:2 majority and was thus decided in favour of Ms. Donoghue, the appellant in the instant case. Lord Atkin, who was heading the bench, clearly said that there was a duty of care by the respondent which was breached. It was held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to all end consumers of the product provided there was no inspection being done of the product and thus the injury was a proximate cause of the breach of that legal duty of care. Lord Tomlin and Buckmaster reflected a contrary opinion on the ground that it was against the already aid down principles of law. They both also challenged the legitimate authority of the case of George vs Skivington (1869) and were of the view that the widening of the horizon for liability of the manufacturer can lead to a plethora of subsequent cases that may arise in future.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/donoghue-v-stevenson-case-analysis/
3 H&N 211
(1883) 11 QBD 503
(1909) AC 640, PC
[1929] SC 461 (Ct Sess) [Barr] 461
(1912) 106 LT 533
(1842) 10 M & W 109