Donoghue v Stevenson
Landmark case that created modern negligence law.
It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the 'Paisley Snail' or 'Snail in the Bottle' case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire, and subsequently suing the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson, after a decomposed snail was found in the bottle.
- field
- Law (tort and delict)
- nationality
- Scottish (case in Scots and English law)
- known_for
- Establishing the modern duty of care in negligence
- court
- House of Lords
Lore & Background
In Paisley, she went to the Wellmeadow Café. A friend ordered a pear and ice for herself; Donoghue asked for a Scotsman ice cream float, a mix of ice cream and ginger beer. The café owner, Francis Minghella, brought over a tumbler of ice cream and poured ginger beer on it from a brown and opaque bottle labelled 'D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley'. Donoghue drank some of the float. When her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail floated out. Donoghue claimed she felt ill, complained of abdominal pain, and was later diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.
Reader's Guide
Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law that did not depend upon any previously recognised category of tortious claims. This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system that only required injury. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.
Did You Know?
- The case is also known as the 'Paisley Snail' or 'Snail in the Bottle' case.
- Donoghue had no contractual relationship with the café owner because her friend had purchased the ginger beer.
- The ginger beer manufacturer, David Stevenson, initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Donoghue.
- The case was preceded by a similar case, Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd, in which the Court of Session ruled against claimants who found dead mice in ginger beer bottles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Donoghue v Stevenson?
It is a landmark 1932 House of Lords decision in Scots and English law that fundamentally reshaped the tort of negligence. The ruling is commonly nicknamed the 'Paisley Snail' or 'Snail in the Bottle' case because of its unusual facts.
What happened in the Donoghue v Stevenson case?
Mrs May Donoghue bought a bottle of ginger beer at a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire, and discovered a decomposed snail inside after consuming part of the drink. She then brought a claim directly against the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson, rather than the café owner who served her.
What legal principle did Donoghue v Stevenson establish?
The case created a general duty of care owed by a manufacturer to the ultimate consumer even when no contractual relationship exists between them. It laid the groundwork for modern negligence law across common law jurisdictions, including Scotland.
Why is Donoghue v Stevenson considered so important?
Before this ruling, a consumer had no direct legal remedy against a manufacturer if privity of contract was absent. The House of Lords' decision opened the door for a broad, universal principle of care that underpins negligence law to this day.
Which court decided Donoghue v Stevenson and where does it apply?
The case was ultimately decided by the House of Lords, the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom at the time. Although it is a Scottish case, its reasoning carries authority across both Scots and English law and has been adopted in common law jurisdictions worldwide.
More in Legal Concepts & Doctrines 1-21
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record