3 What was the Donoghue Vs Stephenson Case about?

Answer 1

On 26 August 1928, Ms Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stevenson, which her friend had bought from a retailer and given to her. The bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail which were not and could not be detected until the greater part of the contents of the bottle had been consumed. As a result she alleged and, at this stage her allegations must be accepted as true, that she suffered from shock and severe gastro enteritis. She accordingly instituted the proceedings against the manufacturers which have given rise to this appeal. [The allegations must be accepted as true at this stage as the argument is being heard on demurrer - that is, the court is testing whether there is such a legal principle, before it goes to the trouble of hearing the evidence. If the finding is against the plaintiff then the costs of an unnecessary trial have been saved. If in favour of the plaintiff, the matter can be set down for trial]. The case is that Stevenson as the manufacturers of an article intended for consumption and contained in a receptacle which prevented inspection owed a duty to her as consumer of the article to take care that there was no noxious element in the goods, that they neglected such duty and are consequently liable for any damage caused by such neglect. The case came before the judge who rejected the plea in Law of Stevenson and allowed a proof [allowed the matter to go to trial on the facts]. His interlocutor [decision] was revoked by the second Division of the Court of Session from whose judgment this appeal has been brought. [In effect, allowing Stevenson's appeal] Before examining the merits two comments are desirable:

1. That the Donoghue case rests solely on the ground of a tort based not on fraud but on negligence;

2. that throughout the appeal the case has been argued on the basis, undisputed by the Second

Division and never questioned by counsel for Stevenson or by any of your Lordships, that the English and the Scots law on the subject are identical. It is, therefore, upon the English law alone that I have considered the matter and in my opinion it is on the English law alone that in the circumstances we ought to proceed. [This was an appeal on a Scottish case and normally the decision would not have been binding on English courts]