Case file - donoghue vs stevenson [1932] ac 56
On Sunday 26th August 1928, a warm sunny day during the Glasgow Trades Holiday, May Donoghue travelled from her home in Glasgow to Paisley for the afternoon to meet a friend, and together they visited the Wellmeadow café for refreshments. As May poured the last of her ginger-beer into her glass, a decomposed snail floated out.
The shock experienced by May when the snail fell out of the bottle was followed by a period of prolonged illness that was diagnosed by her doctor as gastro-enteritis and which required her admission to Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Thereafter May instigated a claim for compensation (a legal process) against the café owner, Francis Minghella, and the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson, for the shock, illness and consequent loss of earnings which she had suffered. This resulted in the action at the instance of May McAllister or Donoghue against David Stevenson, aerated water manufacturer
The case was ground-breaking in Scots law, as it established for the first time in Scottish legal history that a manufacturer could be held responsible for the quality of his product, even though he had no direct contact or contract with the consumer.
The case was initially heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh where the judge, Lord Moncrieff, determined that the manufacturer should be held responsible for the quality of his products and that therefore May Donoghue could proceed to pursue David Stevenson for compensation. However in 1931, David Stevenson appealed Lord Moncrieff’s judgement to the Second Division of the Court of Session where a panel of four judges decided that, according to the precedent set by previous cases of a similar nature, the manufacturer could not be held responsible for something that happened to a person who had no immediate contact or contract with him.
If May wished to pursue David Stevenson for compensation, then she had to appeal to the House of Lords to have this second judgement overturned.
The House of Lords established that Stevenson did owe Donoghue a duty of care and that he had breached this duty by failing to properly inspect the product before offering it for human consumption. The English courts had established the "Neighbour principle"
This became the birth place of the negligence tort.
The shock experienced by May when the snail fell out of the bottle was followed by a period of prolonged illness that was diagnosed by her doctor as gastro-enteritis and which required her admission to Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Thereafter May instigated a claim for compensation (a legal process) against the café owner, Francis Minghella, and the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson, for the shock, illness and consequent loss of earnings which she had suffered. This resulted in the action at the instance of May McAllister or Donoghue against David Stevenson, aerated water manufacturer
The case was ground-breaking in Scots law, as it established for the first time in Scottish legal history that a manufacturer could be held responsible for the quality of his product, even though he had no direct contact or contract with the consumer.
The case was initially heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh where the judge, Lord Moncrieff, determined that the manufacturer should be held responsible for the quality of his products and that therefore May Donoghue could proceed to pursue David Stevenson for compensation. However in 1931, David Stevenson appealed Lord Moncrieff’s judgement to the Second Division of the Court of Session where a panel of four judges decided that, according to the precedent set by previous cases of a similar nature, the manufacturer could not be held responsible for something that happened to a person who had no immediate contact or contract with him.
If May wished to pursue David Stevenson for compensation, then she had to appeal to the House of Lords to have this second judgement overturned.
The House of Lords established that Stevenson did owe Donoghue a duty of care and that he had breached this duty by failing to properly inspect the product before offering it for human consumption. The English courts had established the "Neighbour principle"
This became the birth place of the negligence tort.
Grant v. Australian knitting mills pty ltd [19360
In the winter of 1931, Dr Grant purchased two sets of underclothes. After wearing the underclothes on a number of occasions over a three-week period, he developed an itch. The itch was diagnosed as dermatitis and the underclothes were blamed for the condition. Dr Grant had the underclothes analysed and they were found to contain a harmful chemical. The doctor then decided that he would sue the manufacturer, The Australian Knitting Mills. He argued that the manufacturer had been careless and should compensate him for the discomfort he had to endure as a result of that carelessness. The Australian Knitting Mills argued, among other things, that there was no Australian law that said that they should be held liable in such cases. In Australia, it was the responsibility of a purchaser of goods to inspect the goods for any defects before purchasing them.
The manufacturer was correct—there was no clear Australian law. But Dr Grant was determined and he eventually appealed against the decision to the highest court in Australia (which was at that time an English court called the Privy Council). The Privy Council referred to Donoghue v. Stevenson, in which the English courts had decided:
"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. A manufacturer of products, which are sold in such circumstances so as to prevent the distributor or ultimate consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health. "
The court defined a neighbour as any person who is likely to be closely and directly affected by your actions. The woman who drank the ginger beer was therefore entitled to claim for the injuries she suffered.
Based on this legal reasoning, the Privy Council decided that Dr Grant was closely and directly affected by the actions of the manufacturer of the underclothes. As the manufacturer had not exercised reasonable care in the production of the underclothes, and Dr Grant had suffered an injury as a result, Dr Grant was entitled to compensation. This was the first time that this legal principle—known as negligence—had been applied in Australia. The ratio decidendi of this case became a binding precedent to be followed by all lower courts in the Australian court system.
The manufacturer was correct—there was no clear Australian law. But Dr Grant was determined and he eventually appealed against the decision to the highest court in Australia (which was at that time an English court called the Privy Council). The Privy Council referred to Donoghue v. Stevenson, in which the English courts had decided:
"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. A manufacturer of products, which are sold in such circumstances so as to prevent the distributor or ultimate consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health. "
The court defined a neighbour as any person who is likely to be closely and directly affected by your actions. The woman who drank the ginger beer was therefore entitled to claim for the injuries she suffered.
Based on this legal reasoning, the Privy Council decided that Dr Grant was closely and directly affected by the actions of the manufacturer of the underclothes. As the manufacturer had not exercised reasonable care in the production of the underclothes, and Dr Grant had suffered an injury as a result, Dr Grant was entitled to compensation. This was the first time that this legal principle—known as negligence—had been applied in Australia. The ratio decidendi of this case became a binding precedent to be followed by all lower courts in the Australian court system.