Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is the foundation of the modern law of negligence, establishing Lord Atkin’s “neighbour principle” and a manufacturer’s duty to the ultimate consumer.

Facts of the Case

In August 1928, Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer bought for her by a friend at a Paisley café. The drink, made by the defendant Stevenson, came in an opaque bottle whose contents could not be inspected. After she had drunk some, the remains of a decomposed snail emerged, and she suffered shock and gastroenteritis. Having no contract with the retailer (her friend had bought it), she sued the manufacturer in negligence.

The Judgment

The House of Lords ruled for Mrs Donoghue by a bare majority (Lords Atkin, Thankerton, and Macmillan; Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissenting). A manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer to take reasonable care that goods do not contain defects likely to cause injury. Lord Atkin sought a “general conception of relations” explaining when a duty arises, rather than a closed list of categories; the dissenters feared expanding liability beyond contract or statute would create uncertainty.

Core Legal Principles

Lord Atkin’s “neighbour principle”: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” — a “neighbour” being someone “so closely and directly affected” that one ought to have them in contemplation.

  • The privity fallacy: liability is not governed solely by contractual arrangements.
  • Open categories: Lord Macmillan declared “the categories of negligence are never closed”.
  • Foreseeability as a constant: reasonably foreseeable harm has remained central to duty ever since.

Wider Context and Legal Evolution

Before Donoghue, liability for carelessness was recognised only in classified situations (e.g. Winterbottom v Wright, 1842). Lord Atkin’s universal principle was initially expansionary, but the “duty of care” is now often a “control device” limiting liability. After a broad period in the 1970s–80s, the courts retreated toward the incremental approach of Caparo and Robinson.

Related Cases

  • Winterbottom v Wright (1842): the older view restricting a manufacturer’s duty to those in direct contract.
  • Anns v Merton London Borough Council: restated Donoghue as a two-stage test presuming a duty where harm was foreseeable.
  • Caparo Industries plc v Dickman: replaced Anns with a three-part inquiry and the incremental approach.
  • Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: for foreseeable physical harm from positive acts, Donoghue principles are already settled.
  • Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust: a recent application — a duty not to give misleading information that could foreseeably cause injury.