Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Issue: The primary issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson is whether the defendant, Stevenson, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Donoghue, who was not his direct customer but consumed his product, leading to harm from a contaminated drink.

Rule: The legal rule established by this case is the “neighbour principle,” where one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably injure one’s “neighbours,” meaning persons who are so closely and directly affected by an act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.

Application: In the application, the facts of the case were analyzed in light of the rule. Donoghue consumed a ginger beer manufactured by Stevenson and subsequently became ill after discovering a decomposed snail in the bottle. As there was no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson, the question arose whether Stevenson owed a duty of care to Donoghue. The court determined that Stevenson, as a manufacturer, owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of his products.

Conclusion: The House of Lords concluded that Stevenson did owe a duty of care to Donoghue, which he breached by failing to ensure the safety of the product. This breach resulted in Donoghue’s illness, leading to the establishment of the modern concept of negligence and extending the duty of care to include those indirectly harmed by a defendant’s carelessness.

Detailed IRAC Outline: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Issue:
The fundamental issue is whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer, with whom there was no contractual relationship, to ensure that the product was safe for consumption.

Rule:
The “neighbour principle,” as articulated by Lord Atkin, is that persons owe a duty of care to those who could be reasonably affected by their actions or their failure to act. In this case, it is the duty of a manufacturer to ensure that products are free from defects that could cause harm to consumers.

Application: