MY FAVOURITE CASE Dr Eamonn Hall, solicitor:A case in which the remains of a snail were found in a beer bottle had a profound effect on the development of the common law and on the duty of care, writes CAROLINE MADDEN
What is your favourite case and why?
My favourite case is Donoghue v Stevenson (1932, House of Lords) involving a snail in a ginger beer bottle. It is my favourite because Lord Atkin in the House of Lords (who had family roots in Co Cork) delivered one of the most memorable and significant opinions or judgments ever pronounced.
Lord Atkin’s decision, written in a most elegant style, has had a profound effect on the development of the common law. This judge-made law changed the law of negligence forever, and the principles of the case on the duty of care have a significance for every citizen in this state and in the common law world.
What is the background to the case?
This case arose from a humble set of facts.
On a Sunday evening on August 26th, 1928, May Donoghue, a shop assistant and a separated lady of modest means, made her way from her home to a cafe in Paisley, Scotland, to meet a friend. In Minchella’s Cafe, Donoghue’s friend ordered an ice cream and a ginger beer for Donoghue – a little treat in Scotland. Francis Minchella, the owner of the cafe, is said to have brought the ice cream in a tumbler and to have poured on it some ginger beer from a brown opaque bottle bearing the name “D Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley”.
After Donoghue had taken some of the “treat” and while her friend was refilling her glass, she saw what she believed to be the partly decomposed remains of a snail floating out of the bottle. There was some doubt if there ever had been such a snail, but it is generally accepted today there had been a decomposed snail in the bottle. It took Donoghue three days before she sought medical treatment from her doctor – a factor that today might invite a certain line of questioning in any court hearing.
Donoghue sought the advice of solicitor Walter Leechman. She could not sue the owner of the cafe as she had no contract with him, so she sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson, for £500 and costs for her trauma or nervous shock – a considerable sum in 1928.
Donoghue’s case against the manufacturer of the contents of the ginger beer bottle failed in the Court of Session, Scotland. She was entitled to appeal to the House of Lords in London, but she had no money and would have been a “mark for costs”.
So she declared herself a pauper swearing: “I am very poor and am not worth in all the world the sum of five pounds”, and her “certificate of poverty” was supported by the minister and two elders of her church. Her solicitor persevered with the case.
The Donoghue v Stevenson case was heard over two days (December 10th and 11th, 1931) in the House of Lords. In a split court of three-to-two, the House of Lords held that a manufacturer of food, medicine or the like is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health.
However it was, in part, the majestic language of Lord Atkin for the majority, and his reasoning, that had a seismic effect on the law of negligence, not only in Britain but in Ireland and throughout the common law and, in effect, the English-speaking world.
In his judgment, Lord Atkin said the following: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question: Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
“Who, then, in law is my neighbour?
The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” His adoption of the Good Samaritan parable involving Jesus and the lawyer’s question to Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?” as recounted in the Gospel of Luke was ingenious.
What is the significance of the case?
Probably no other single case has given rise to more debate involving praise and condemnation with the focus on the “neighbour principle” of Lord Atkin.
The decision made it easier to sue for a wrong or a loss where there was no contract in existence between the parties, thus benefitting many consumers. Litigants could sue on the basis that a duty of care may be owed to those outside a “special relationship”.
Put at its simplest, the “neighbour principle” enunciated in this case means that a person may be stated to have a duty of care to another (and thus be subject to liability) if the harm or loss incurred by one party was “reasonably foreseeable” and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.