What Two Important Legal Principles Were Key to the Judgment in the Case of Donoghue V. Stevenson

However, the most modern approach is not to dismiss the attempts made in Donoghue v. Stevenson to establish a general test for the existence of an obligation, or even to insist that courts rely exclusively on the 3-step test in Caparo, but to depart from the strict application of these principles when other important new considerations apply. This approach is confirmed by recent Supreme Court decisions in Michael v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 and Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4. Stevenson, also known as the “snail in the bottle box,” is an important case in Western law. The judgment in this case established the tort of negligence and obliged companies to observe a duty of care towards their customers. The results of Donoghue v. Stevenson established several legal principles and precedents: English case law, which required liability for damage resulting from goods that were not inherently dangerous to have a contractual basis (breach of warranty), was rejected by Lord Moncrieff (quoting John Salmond) because of the narrowness of the approach and because there was no decision introducing it into Scots law. Rejected. [5]: 26–27 [15]: 15–16 Finally, despite his factual similarity, Mullen was dismissed by a “very careful reading of precedents.” [5]: 27–29 [15]: 17–19 The manufacturer appealed to the Court of Session. The two appeals were combined in March 1929 and tried simultaneously. The plaintiffs failed in both cases.

The court ruled that negligence had to be proved. The fact that mice were in the bottle did not in itself prove negligence, so no negligence can be inferred, as the court concluded that the manufacturer had a state-of-the-art bottle cleaning system. The court went even further, finding that, even if the plaintiffs had proven the negligence of the producer, no obligation was owed to the Mullen children or Ms. Oribine, since neither party had purchased the ginger beer. Facts: Ms. Donoghue consumed ginger beer bought by a friend while they were at a coffee shop. Ginger beer had a decomposed snail, this was only noticed when Mrs. Donoghue started consuming the drink. She was suffering from a physical illness because she was drinking the contaminated drink. Lord Thankerton ruled that Donoghue had no contract with Stevenson or that his case was covered by one of the scenarios in which due diligence had already been established.

However, it noted that, if the goods could not be examined or damaged, the producer `entered into a direct relationship with the consumer on his own initiative, so that the consumer was entitled to rely on the care of the producer to ensure that the goods were not prejudicial to him`. an exception to the general lack of a duty of care that applied to Donoghue. [5]: 51 [10]: 59–60 Hedley`s pure economic loss approach was refined in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, 1990] 2 AC 605.