Introduction:
After the end of world war, globalization was the next phase in human development. We could see small companies now becoming global conglomerates. In India, we saw the opening of our market for foreign companies in the 1990s. All this development brought us more comfort and variety in our choices. But it also led to the generalization of many products and the personal touch of smaller companies go. Sometimes this absence of personal touch with the consumers can lead to apathy among the big companies.
When they commit something wrong; they will try ways to come out of it rather than genuinely seeing the problem consumer is facing. We can see this kind of fight between the consumer and the companies in many cases across the world. Perhaps one of the most famous cases was the Donoghue v. Stevenson[1] one which was a great victory for the consumers. In this article, we will analyse this case to learn more about company liability.
Facts of the Case
Donoghue v. Stevenson is one of the most important case in torts especially in setting the modern explanation of Negligence. Also known as a snail in the bottle case it is taught to every law aspirant in their study to join a law school. It was a Scottish case in 1932 which went till the House of Lords; which was the highest court for civil law for cases in Scotland. The facts of the case involve Mrs Donoghue who went to Wellmeadow Café in Paisley to meet her friend. Her friend ordered a Scottish Ice Cream Float for herself and ordered ice-cream and Ginger Beer for Mrs Donoghue.
The owner of the Café brought a tumbler of ice-cream and poured the Ginger Beer on it through a brown and opaque bottle; which was labelled as “D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley”. After drinking some of the float her friend poured the remaining beer into the ice cream; when a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle. After seeing this Mrs. Donoghue felt ill and complained of abdominal pains. Later she was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary where she was diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock.
Early Developments
Walter Leechman took the case of Mrs Donoghue because his firm had experience in similar cases. In those times damages related to defective products were usually claimed under the contract of sale between the buyer and seller. However, in this case, Mrs Donoghue didn’t buy the Ginger Beer product; it was her friend who had paid for it and she had not suffered any injury. Therefore, she had to claim damages under Negligence. Her writ claimed 500 pounds in damages and 50 pounds in cost.
The main issue raised was that the manufacturer Mr Stevenson had a duty of care towards Mrs Donoghue to provide his products safely and for not implementing an effective cleaning system in his factories. This was a breach of duty towards Mrs Donoghue who suffered due to this negligence.
Later Developments
In the sessions court, the lawyers of Stevenson said that there was no precedent for this case. There was a case however which was very similar to this case and Mrs Donoghue’s lawyer was also involved there. In the case of Mullen v. A.G. Barr and Co. Ltd.,[2] the claimants had claimed that they fell ill when they found dead mice in their ginger beer. There the judges held that the manufacturer is only owed a duty of care to the ultimate customers if there was a contractual relationship between them and the dangerousness of the product was withheld from the consumers. Mr Stevenson’s lawyers used this precedent in the sessions court whose judges were the similar ones from Mullen’s case and so they also held the same ruling as was done in the earlier case and held Stevenson to not be liable to pay Mrs Donoghue any damages.
Judgement and Ratio Decidendi
After the session court ruling, Donoghue filed a petition to appeal to the House of Lords which was accepted. Earlier it was expensive to appeal so she had to prove her poverty to get legal charity and her legal team also decided to fight the case as pro bono. There were three ratios in the judgements and all the three today have a lasting impact on the tort of negligence as well as product liability. The first one was about negligence. The House of Lords affirmed that negligence is a tort.
A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent if the respondent’s negligence lead to any injury or loss of property to the plaintiff. Previously the plaintiff had to prove a contractual agreement for negligence to be considered as sale of any good, but in this judgement, it was held that Stevenson was responsible for any defect in the good.
The second ratio was about the duty of care. It was held that manufacturers have a duty of care to the end consumers. Lord Atkin said “ a manufacturer of products, which he sells… to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.” Here the plaintiff could not see the snail in the bottle because it was brown and opaque so the plaintiff could not stop the tort from happening.
The third ratio is the neighbour principle which is still a controversial piece. It expanded the tort of negligence beyond the immediate party. In this case, Mrs Donoghue was the neighbour as she had not purchased the product. To explain the principle he referred to the biblical parable of Good Samaritan and Love Thy Neighbour lines. He said that “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
He explained neighbour as “Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affect by my act that I ought to have them in mind when I am considering these acts or omissions”. Thus Mr Stevenson was held liable but he died before the case could be finalised so Mrs Donoghue was given 200 pounds out of the estate of Mr Stevenson by his executors.
Conclusion
Thus we could see how the case change the history of the tort of negligence and brought so many changes that it is still today. The case is widely use as a precedent by many courts across the world for cases of product liability which have now been more expand to give more compensation to the consumers. In this globalised world product liability and consumer protection are very important concepts and by this single case, these aspects are seen as serious objective by the companies. After this case, negligence was seen as a tort and it open new avenues for customers to gain justice from companies who did not keep their health in mind.
References:
[1] 1932 UKHL 100
[2] 1929 ScotCS CSIH 3
0 Comments