SBM3104 Introduction to Business Law

Facts of the Case

On 26 August 1928, Donoghue went to the Wellmeadow café at Paisley, Renfrewhire, Scotland, to meet her friend. Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a Scotsman Ice-cream float, a blend of ginger beer and ice-cream at the café. It was served by Francis Minghella, the owner of café, who poured some of the ginger beer over the ice-cream; the beer was from the brand “D. Stevenson, Glen Lane Paisley” that came in a brown opaque bottle. The rest of the beer was later poured by Donoghue directly from the bottle into the ice-cream tumbler, thereby emptying the bottle and finding a decomposed snail come out of it. This horrific incident lead Donoghue suffer an anxiety shock as soon as she saw a decomposed snail over her ice cream tumbler that came out of the beer bottle. she suffered from a gastroenteritis, a typo abdominal abnormality, which made her pursue legal action against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, which is Stevenson (Goh and Round 2017).

A legal proceeding was instituted by Mrs Donoghue against the beer manufacturer, Stevenson. It was pointed out that the beverage was meant to be consumed by any person, irrespective of the point that whether it was the purchaser who drank the product himself. Thus, holding the manufacturer of the beer liable for doing a duty of care towards the purchasers and consumers of the beverage, ensuring that it is not contaminated and safe for consumption. It was held that the defendant had breached his duty of care by neglecting to ensure the consumption worthy condition of the beverage, thus to be held liable for paying compensation or monetary damages to the victim suffered by drinking the contaminated beer that is Mrs Donoghue in this case (Kleefeld 2011).

The legal proceeding was initially instituted before the Lord Ordinary which was rejected, thereby leading to an appeal before the Second Division of the Court of Session where it was rejected again. It was finally appealed before the House of Lords, where the famous judgement related to determining a person who shall have a duty of care towards another was established.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue of the case was that the manufacturer of the beer was pointed out for neglecting his duty of care towards the consumers, whether or not the consumers purchased the beers themselves. Stevenson, the defendant of the case was held liable for being negligent to ensure the safety of the products, which were meant for human consumption. It was argued that the manufacturer shall owe a duty of care towards the purchaser of the products, which is the owner of the cafe Mr Francis Minghella, who had served the beer to Mrs Donoghue (Chapman 2010). However, such argument was countered by raising the most significant question as to whom shall a person owe a duty of care and how it could be determined.

Applicable Law

The Second Division of the Court of Session In its session mentioned that (Reid 2010):

The common law of torts in relation to the tort of negligence shall guide the case, and not based on the principles of fraud or fraudulent misconduct of the manufacturer, and

The points of law of this appeal have been based on the English and Scott laws, both of which are particularly based on the Common Law System, and are identical.  Hence, the judgement of the case has been based on the English Common law.

It was also mentioned by the court that its decision and judgement are not entirely based on the theories of common law due to their lack of authority, and thus asking them to base their judgement upon precedents, by a trial-and-error method in order to check whether they are similar to the concerned case (Reid 2010).

Arguments of the appellant

 In the quest to prove her point right in regard to holding the manufacturer liable, the case of Mullen v. A.G. Barr & Co. Ltd. 1929 S.C. 461 was cited where a manufacturer was held liable for failing to ensure the consumption quality of its produced ginger beer, which made a child fall sick on consumption, which was found to be contaminated with dead mice. here it was projected that the appellant must produce sufficient evidence as to prove that he had fallen sick particularly by drinking the contaminated beverage made by the person held liable for its production, in order to hold him liable under the law of tort. It was simply held by the court that the respondent, who is the manufacturer of the beer, had failed to ensure his duty of care towards the consumers, irrespective of the fact that the consumer was the one to have directly purchased it from the manufacturer or whether it was bought through a retailer. A failure of the manufacturer to inspect the packaged bottles, thereby ensuring that the beverage was safe for human consumption.

Another cited case what mentioning is the case of George v Skivington (1869) 3 H&N 211, where a manufacturer Producing goods for human consumption was held liable for failing to take reasonable measures to ensure that his products were of consumable quality, thus made liable to pay damages to the victims. Based on the precedent of the two cases, it was argued that Stevenson, the manufacturer, had also failed to carry out his duty of care towards Donoghue, a consumer.

Arguments of the respondent

Initially, the allegations brought by the appellant in regard to finding a dead snail coming out of the beer bottle was denied by the respondent along with stating that the claims of injury made by the appellant was false as it was mere exaggeration in regard to an illness that the plaintiff might have had already. It was highlighted that the plaintiff had only suffered from a medical condition which she already had when she consumed the beer, which may have amplified her condition Unknowingly. Thus, her claims of injury by blaming his product were false and no compensation should be payable. Further, the responded stated that (Goh and Round 2017):

Stevenson further argued that the most basic rule to establish a relationship between a seller and buyer in terms of a duty of care Is the contract entered by them, where one expressly agrees to exhibit a duty of care towards another, except for when (Reid 2010):

1. a) a product that was sold is of dangerous nature, and
2. b) the seller had obvious reasons to believe that the product could be dangerous to the buyer for a particular reason.
   
   

It is only under these exceptions when a seller shall be held invariably liable to a buyer, failing to ensure which shall amount to a breach of his duty of care towards the buyer, In regard to the implied terms of contract between the parties. In this regard, it was pointed out that there was no contract between Donoghue and Stevenson and that the beer was not a dangerous product and was safe for human consumption. If there was a contract, it was between Stevenson and the owner of the cafe who had served the beer to Mrs Donoghue, for It is the owner of the cafe who is the actual purchaser of the product. In this context, several common law precedents were cited by the respondent or proving his innocence against the allegations brought by the appellant, mainly by highlighting the fact that there was no breach of duty as there was no duty at all (Reid 2010).

Ratio Decidendi

Going by the majority judgement, it was held that every manufacturer shall owe a duty of care towards anyone who is purchasing or consuming the product, especially products that are meant for human consumption and are likely to affect a person’s health if its consumable quality is not ensured. The fact that an express contract needs to be set between a seller and a buyer to establish a duty of care was rejected by the majority decision. Thus, the main Ratio Decidendi was that the respondent had failed to ensure his duty of care of making sure that the bottled beverage was not contaminated and was worthy of human consumption (Goh and Round 2017).

However, the most essential point that was highlighted was the neighbour principle laid down by Lord Atkin, which actually made this case a landmark precedent in the area of law of tort of negligence. It is the neighbour principle that was derived from this case that made it a landmark precedent and considered to be a founding stone for modern tort cases in respect to negligence of a concerned party and his duty of care towards another (Reid 2010). It was one of those foremost cases that discussed the determinants to establish the duty of care of a person, along with identifying as to who shall have a duty of care towards another. Lord Atkin explained the neighbour principle by stating that a neighbour is a person who is in close proximity to another, whose actions or omissions are likely to affect such other person, thus requiring the neighbour to act reasonably and with precautions, thereby ensuring safety of the other person (Kleefeld 2011). Thus, it suggests that the neighbour shall have a duty of care towards the person living in his close proximity, as breach of which shall amount to a loss or injury of the person.  

Evaluating the ratio Decidendi

Evaluating the Ratio Decidendi that arises from this case, certain legal principles could be pointed out to have arose along with it. To determine whether the decision of the House of Lords was appropriate, it must be first understood what the court actually meant while holding the respondent liable. House of Lord had confirmed that the case was based on the tort of negligence, where the respondent was liable for being negligent towards the appellant. In this regard it could be argued that the notion of a contractual agreement between the seller and the buyer, especially the ones who are manufacturing products for human consumption, is to be rejected altogether, for it is unreasonable to believe that the purchaser shall be the consumer of the product always (Chapman 2010). The fact that Donoghue had no contractual ties with Stevenson directly does not lower his responsibility towards Donoghue or any other consumer, risking their health by consuming a contaminated beverage. Therefore, it was a right decision of the court to recognise the personal injury incurred by Donoghue when she consumed the contaminated beer.

Following the principles of the English Common law, it could be rightly assessed that Stevenson was reasonably guilty for not ensuring the consumable quality of the product that he manufactured, thus emphasising on the principle of a duty of care among everyone who have consumed the product made by the manufacturer. The determination of a person’s duty of care was subsequently addressed by the court which rightly pointed out that a person must exhibit certain special aspects to be marked as an entity that held a certain duty of care towards a section of people, especially consumers (Chapman 2010). It was with the help of Lord Atkins' neighbour principle that helps in determining a person who could be pointed out as a person having a duty of care towards another. Following this principle, the determinants of the tort of negligence, further, helps in establishing a guilt of negligence upon a party who has been negligent by failing to carry out his duty of care towards another. The notion of holding the manufacturer liable for ensuring the consumable quality of his products is the initiation for developing the concept of consumer protection under the English common law (Kleefeld 2011).

Lastly, the application of the neighbour principle could not only be found in case of the thought of negligence but it is also found in other types of tortious matters Wherever it is necessary to establish a relationship between a victim and a tortfeasor, especially where it becomes essential to establish A duty of care that was breached by the tortfeasor.

Decision of the court and its critical evaluation

The five-judge bench of the House of Lords was divided in 3-2, the majority of whom decided that the case had legal issues and a cause of action to be addressed, and subsequently holding Stevenson, the respondent of the case liable for reaching his duty of care that he owed To Donoghue, for she was the consumer of his product, irrespective of the fact whether or not she bought it from Stevenson directly (Kleefeld 2011).

This majority decision held by Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan in favour of the appellant accounts for a landmark precedent that changed the face of public health policy by holding the manufacturer liable for consumer safety, which was previously dependent upon proving an express contract between the seller and the buyer. Thus, this case paved the way for establishing a duty of care of a person in close proximity to another, who shall be bound to exhibit a duty of care towards the other, as any discrepancy would result in an injury or loss to such other person (Chapman 2010).

Lord Atkin in his famous statement regarding the neighbour principle, held the view that English and Scots shed identical laws in terms of the tort of negligence, dead by it becomes easier for the court to determine the duty of care of a person based on his proximity to the victim. With the help of the case MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916), Lord Atkin let down the similarities between the liability of the English and Scots manufacturer, thereby holding them both liable for the safety of the consumers, thereby asking the manufacturers to ensure good physical and mental health of the end users. Such an approach of Lord Atkin in terms of holding liability of the manufacturers and asking them to ensure good health of the consumers was a new concept altogether (Chapman 2010). In addition, the statements given by the other judges in terms of protecting the relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer, not only by ensuring a commercial integrity between them but also by inciting a sense of responsibility and humanity in the people who are vested with the responsibility to care for others, as such others' safety and security lies in their hand.

References

Chapman, M., 2010. The Snail and The Ginger Beer: The Singular Case of Donoghue V Stevenson. Law Reports Annual Lecture. Widly, Simmonds and Hilly Publishing.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

George v Skivington (1869) 3 H&N 211; 157 ER 448

Goh, B. C., & Round, T., 2017. Wild negligence: Donoghue v Stevenson. In Law as if Earth Really Mattered (pp. 91-106). Routledge.

Kleefeld, J.C., 2011. The Snail and the Ginger Beer: The Singular Case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Matthew Chapman (London: Wildy, Simmonds & Hill, 2010). Alberta Law Review, pp.245-245.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

Mullen v. A.G. Barr & Co. Ltd.; M'Gowan v. Barr & Co. 1929 S.C. 461

Reid, E., 2010. The Snail in the Ginger Beer Float: Donoghue v Stevenson. In Scots Law Tales. Edinburgh University Press.

Do you think, “I wish a professional could write my assignment for me?” whenever deadlines come knocking on your door? Then we’ve got the best news for you! At Myassignmenthelp.co.uk, you can avail yourself of the best finance assignment help in the UK. But that’s not all! You can also explore top-notch accounting assignment help without worrying about burning a hole in your pocket.

Our affordable services have become the top choice for students looking for reliable coursework help at a moment's notice. Moreover, our experts are always available to answer your queries. So, feel free to send us your questions, and you're guaranteed high-quality homework help services 24/7.