Cite as: SC (HL) 31, [] UKHL 3, [] UKHL , [] AC Donoghue v Stevenson [] UKHL (26 May ). Donoghue v Stevenson [] AC negligence, duty of care, neighbour test, tort law. Donoghue v Stevenson []. Facts. Donoghue’s friend purchased her a bottle of ginger beer; The bottle contained the decomposing remains.

Author: Samugul Monos
Country: Ecuador
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 24 October 2013
Pages: 159
PDF File Size: 18.34 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.56 Mb
ISBN: 331-8-72187-277-7
Downloads: 17941
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zulkijin

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, HL

Retrieved 7 September The bottle was made of dark opaque glass and D had no reason to suspect that it contained anything but pure ginger beer. The York Nursery death: Every man ought to take reasonable care that he does not injure his neighbour; therefore, wherever a man receives any hurt through the default of another, though the same were not wilful, yet if it be occasioned by negligence or folly, the law gives him an action to recover damages for the injury so sustained.

Supreme Court rules on duty of care. Hedley Byrne and other cautionary tales”. It is a proposition which I venture to say no one in Scotland or England who was not a lawyer would for one moment doubt. Retrieved 2 September A friend, [Note 2] who was with her ordered a pear and ice for herself and a Scotsman ice cream floata mix of ice cream and ginger beerfor Donoghue.

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. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of “culpa,” is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay.


The manufacturer was liable. She continued to work as a shop assistant. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. Text and Materials 4 ed. Lord Reidgiving the leading judgment, rejected the argument that there was no precedent for the claim, instead acknowledging “a steady trend towards regarding the law of negligence as depending on principle so that, when a new point emerges, one vonoghue ask not whether it is covered by authority but whether recognised principles [from Donoghue ] apply to it”.

Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley”. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that donognue thing will be 132 by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully Lord Buckmaster dismissed George v Skivington[22] opining that “few cases can have lived so dangerously and lived so long”, [12]: But I think that the time has come when we can and should say that it ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.

Donoghue v Stevenson – Wikipedia

The Not so Golden Anniversary”. While he agreed with Lord Atkin that the duty of care a manufacturer owed to its consumers was the same regardless of the product they produced, he held that no general duty of care existed and that stevendon fact the product was in a sealed container made no difference to the finding of a such duty.

Skip to main content. This page was last edited on 21 Novemberat Archived from the original on 14 April She fell ill, and she sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. wc


However, the claim was settled out of court in December [15]: Moreover, Stevenson initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Donoghue. I fail to see why the odnoghue that the danger has been introduced by an act of negligence and does not advertise itself, should release the negligent manufacturer from a duty, or afford him a supplementary defence.

Lord Atkin then ztevenson cases that did not support his approach and cited Benjamin N.

Donoghue v Stevenson

Thomas’ wife became seriously ill as a consequence and Thomas successfully claimed in negligence; Winchester’s behaviour had created an imminent danger which justified a finding of a duty of care.

In separate hearings eonoghue Glasgow and Greenock Sheriff Court respectively, Orbine was successful in claiming compensation while the Mullens were not.

Back to lecture outline on judicial precedent. Brexit sparks job security fears.

Primary Menu

Donoghue had moved to Maitland Street with her son, Henry, around February ; he moved out when he married inafter which she moved to Jamieson Street. Retrieved 16 September Stevenson appealed the case to the Inner Housewhere it was heard by the same four judges who had found against Mullen: Lord Atkin stated as follows: Retrieved 18 September He supported this broad test by citing Heaven v Pender [20] and rejected the cases in favour of a narrower interpretation of a duty of care with the example of negligently poisoned food, for which there had been no claim against the manufacturer.

Winchester [31] and MacPherson v.

Previous post: