Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 AC 562

This case is the law-making case. A new cause of action known as manufacturer liability was developed.
The principle is product liability of manufacturer.

The principle has four elements:

Neighbour Principle

Manufacturer have duty of care to their neighbours. Entering in contract makes contracted duty of care.
These is an implied term that even if there is no contract, still there is reasonable duty of care exists. So
Donoghue’s friend bought the bottle of ginger beer which is consumed by Donoghue. Here there is no
contract between Donoghue and manufacturer. But principle says, not necessarily there should be any
physical proximity with the neighbor, here it is reasonable for manufacturer to foresee who is their
neighbor.

Reasonable Care:

The principle says it is reasonably foreseeable for the manufacturer to act with duty of care. As their
conduct /activity may access damage to their neighbours. Here it is reasonably foreseeable that the
ginger beer will be consumed by someone whom the manufacturer doesn’t have direct contract and the
result may be vulnerable.

Breach of Reasonable Care:

This principle says if there is any breach of reasonable care, the company can be sued. Knowing that the
beer will be consumed by someone, they didn’t confirm the quality which resulted a snail in the bottle.
There they breached the duty of reasonable care. The loss is not to remote and is caused by breach of
negligence.

Duty of Care:

This principle says if any loss is caused by negligence of duty of care, the manufacturer can be sued.
Here the manufacturer’s negligence clearly shows.

All the four elements mentioned above prove that the proximity, causation, breach of duty of
care, negligence exist in this case. So, Donoghue has the right to claim compensation.

This case advanced the law as now-a-days every similar cause regarding this dispute considering
the principle of product liability of manufacturer.