Donoghue v Stevenson Case Analysis - Essay Example

? Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Introduction The full of this case decided at the House of Lords on 26th May, 1932 is M’Alister or Donoghue (Pauper), hereby the Appellant against Stevenson, the Respondent decided by bench composed of Lords Buckmaster, Atkin, Tomlin, Thankerton and Macmillan. This case was brought about by a complainant who sued the manufacturer of a beer she had consumed for being negligent in the manufacture of the beer, which caused her to suffer psychologically and medically. The facts of the case are that on the 26th day of August, 1928, the appellant Donoghue partook of a bottle of beer manufactured at the respondent’s premises which had been bought from a retailer and brought to her by a friend. The appellant drank the beer and only realized that there were remains of decomposed snail when she was about to finish taking the ginger beer. The appellant claimed that at the time of noticing the remains of the decomposed snail, it made her suffer from shock and complications related with gastro enteritis. She therefore sued the manufacturers of the beer for breach of duty of care and for being negligent giving rise to the appeal case to be determined. This case set the base for negligence cases and the factors that must be determined in order that it is established. The importance of the Donoghue case is that it set a foundation for cases based on breach of duty of care and the requirement for payment of damages and liability in case of a breach of duty of care. Donohue argued that the respondent as a manufacturer of a product meant for human consumption and that it should ensure that any foodstuff that it packaged in its products were fit for human consumption and not noxious in nature. She therefore stated in her complaint that the failure by the manufacturer to ensure that its products met the standards necessary for human consumption meant that it had breached the duty it owed to its clients or customers and they should therefore be held liable. This case moved from one court to another court, with the two courts giving differing judgments, until it was brought before the House of Lords. In the appeal case at the House of Lords, Donoghue stated that the beer had been produced by the respondent as a foodstuff to be sold and consumed by members of the public as a drink. The fact that it was bottled by the respondent and labeled with his name and the bottle sealed, it was upon the respondent to ensure that they have a system that would stop the snails from getting into the bottle. She therefore contended that the failure by the respondent to take these precautions led to her predicament and therefore it should be held liable for negligence. The respondent Mr Stevenson argued that as a producer of a product, he had no duty that it owed to its customers apart from that that comes about due to contractual obligations. He argued that the case would introduce a new principle that was not present previously, that of goods that are intended for human consumption sold to the public in a form in which it would have been difficult to investigate. Previously, the exception in such cases were that the goods should have been deemed to be dangerous in the strictest sense and if the manufacturer knew of the danger in the good. The decision in this case was not unanimous as some of the judges dissented. Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented from the judgment and dismissed the appeal on the basis of the case of Mullin v Barr1 where Lord Anderson stated that in cases where the goods of the defendant are those with a wider distribution all over Scotland. Moreover, it would be imprudent to make them liable for every other claims by the plaintiffs or the members of the public as they would be made to pay for the damages incurred which could not be possibly investigated. By citing the case of Winterbottom v Wright2, Lord Tomlin argued that allowing the appeal would be an injustice to the respondent as torts would always be brought against the defendants who had done everything to the satisfaction of employers when things get worse. However, Lords Thankerton, Atkin and Macmillan found the respondent liable for breach of duty of care owed to the appellant. Lord Atkin found that the appellant Ms Donoghue was owed a duty of care by the respondent manufacturer and was therefore entitled to a relief in the form of damages due to the harm caused to her. Lord Atkin also based his opinion on the neighbor principle that requires that we only do acts that are reasonable to those around us taking care not to injure them. On the other hand, Lord Macmillan while restating that the manufacturer owed a duty to its customers introduced a principle known as the principle of reasonable foreseeability and remoteness. In the argument of Lord Macmillan, in negligence claims, the burden of proving that a negligent act had been committed lay on the person to who has suffered harm. Lord Thankerton allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had proved her relationship with the respondent in terms of the duty of care owed to it and the negligence that had been committed. Legal Background Before the decision of the House of Lords in the Donoghue v Stevenson case, the tort of negligence was characterized by first asking whether that act or omission of causing the harm fell within one of the known or existing categories of tort. If there was no recognizable duty of care owed to the plaintiff, he would not recover any damages, this was the law in 1932 and that liability was only found to only exist in limited but specific circumstances. In the early case of Langridge v Levy3, the question of negligence and duty of care was discussed extensively as to whether a man who sold a gun to a purchaser’s son without informing him of the danger of the gun owed him a duty of care when the gun exploded. In this case, the court found that duty of care and negligence had a wider application and could not be applied in negligence claims. Tort laws in the old times only protected the defendants or persons whom claims were brought against on the basis of negligence. However, there were exceptions to that law which included if the item or the product was deemed dangerous in it which must come in contact with the claimant as found n the case of Dominion Gas Coy v Collins.4 There was also exception when the article in itself is not deemed dangerous but in real sense it is dangerous due to a defect or some reason known to the manufacturer. The principle of duty of care as owed consumers by the manufacturers or producers of goods was espoused in the case of George v Skiving,5 whereby the perpetrator sold some liquid for washing hair appealing that he had personally manufactured it. It later turned out that it was not prepared well according to the usual mode of preparation and the defendant’s wife was injured in place. The learned judges held that unquestionably, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff in that the product was bought with the knowledge of the vendor that the plaintiff intended it for a particular purpose. Issues of the Case The issues to be decided in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson were narrowed down to negligence that is the determination when liability should accrue to a manufacturer to the consumer in case he acts negligently. The court in the Donoghue case was also faced with the problem of defining food and whether it would cause injury or harm to the health of a consumer. Lord Atkin in formulating what the duty of care is in relation to negligence, stated that there is a conception that gives rise for the need for duty of care. He therefore stated that liability for negligence is based upon the publicly approved norm of moral wrongdoing that requires that the person on the offending side must pay for the offence he has committed. Therefore, there is that duty of care that is required of persons offering products to avoid being negligent in the provision of the goods or services they offer to their clients. Lord Macmillan also raised an issue that has a direct bearing on the duty of care whereby he stated that any person who engages in the business of manufacturing or producing drinks for consumption by members of the public in the form he produces and distributes them has a duty of care to those he intends to consume the products, that of not injuring them. The duty means that the article he issues for consumption will not injure or cause death to the intended customers. The neighbor principle also arose as an issue that should be determined. It was agreed as espoused by Lord Atkin that one must always strive not to injure his neighbor as a way of maintaining the good neighborliness principle. Therefore, each person is required to take reasonable care not to participate in acts or omissions, which he can foresee through reason and are likely to injure or harm persons near you. In formulating this, the court defined a neighbor as any person who is likely to be affected by the acts or omissions of others that another person ought to have in mind or consideration when he undertakes to do something or fails to do it. The issue of reasonable foreseeability was raised by Lord Macmillan whereby the learned judge found that at times it can be envisaged that liability can only rise where a reasonable man would have foreseen and could have avoided the act or the omission that caused harm to another person. In the Donoghue case the court held that the respondent by being a producer of foodstuff knew that it was meant for consumption by its would-be customers. Therefore, he should have been in a position to foresee reasonably that by manufacturing his product carelessly, it would injure or harm the persons whom he intended to consume his product that is the ginger beer. Lord Macmillan also raised the issue of remoteness in breach of duty claims whereby in the determination of negligence it must always be a question of the circumstances. The court determines whether the carelessness of the manufacturer amounted to negligence and whether the injury suffered by the complainant was not too remote from the carelessness under question. Under remoteness, the judge proposed a general rule as that which states that responsibility should cease when the manufacturer no longer has control of the product. Lord Macmillan also proposed an issue about the burden of proof whereby the burden of proving that there was a breach of duty of care lies on the injured party that requires him to establish that the injury was found in the article he has consumed at the time it left his hands. Therefore, Negligence must be averred and proved by the person claiming that a duty of care has been breached thus occasioning injury. Conclusion The Donoghue v Stevenson case has had a great impact on product liability laws. Up until the decision in Donoghue case, the liability attached to products was based on the same principles as the law of tort that is holding the manufacturer liable required not only proof of his carelessness but also proof of breach of a particular duty of care owed to the complainant. This case created new frontier in case law of confirming that a manufacturer is liable for breach of duty of care expected of it if it became careless in the manufacturing process. This was because it was initially thought that whereas a person who manufactured or produced goods for consumption had a duty of care to the customers, he did not owe such a duty to a third party with whom he had no contract. The case therefore laid down the principle that stated that manufacturers owed a duty of care to the consumer of their products not to create risks of harm through the manufacturing process. The case revolutionized the law on negligence as an independent form of tort as it widened the scope of application of the principles of the tort of negligence by freeing the possibility to prove an individual case from dependence on precedence. The neighbor principle widely argued in the Donoghue case will make it last longer though the case may not be followed in the strictest sense. This is because the case allowed the society to appreciate what is acceptable and proper conduct in the society. It played an important part in humanizing humanity and it is likely to stay for a long time, without being overturned. Since the case of Donoghue case, liability claims based on products that have caused harm has been shifted from that of construing liability in the strict sense to that that bases liability on a manufacturer only when a fault has been found. This means that the decision in this case is likely to be eclipsed or diminished. There are scenarios in which the Donoghue case may be applicable. For example, a mouse found in a bottle of beer would result into a claim based on negligence that makes the manufacturer liable for the breach of duty of care. Similarly, if a cockroach were to be found in maize flour after cooking, the manufacturer of the flour would be held liable for the breach of duty of care. In a restaurant, if a client were to ingest hair that is found in the food served, she could bring a claim based on negligence against the restaurant owner. Reference United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932). Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html Table of Cases Dominion Gas Coy v Collins. 1990, A.C., 640 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 George v Skivington. L.R.. 5 Ex. 1 Langridge v Levy. 2. M. & W., 519 Mullin v Barr. 1929 S.C. Winterbottom v Wright. 10 M. & W. 109 Read More