Donoghue v Stevenson - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence PDF

Preview

Summary

Detailed case brief
Torts: Negligence...

Description

Donoghue v Stevenson Case Name: Area of law concerned: Court: Date:

1932

Judge:

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkin

Counsel: Summary of Facts:

Relief sought:

The defendant drank a bottle of ginger-beer, and then discovered that it contained the decomposed remains of a snail. She then suffered from shock and severe gastro-enteritis. Damages

Issues:

Did the manufacturer owe the consumer a duty of care?

Class Issue statement: Material Facts:



Procedural History:

The facts were assumed to be true. Rather than going to trial, the question was put to the courts as to whether there was a duty of care. If so, then the case would proceed to trial.

Defendant’s arguments: Plaintiff’s arguments: Result:

A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty of care to the consumer to take reasonable care. A duty of care arises when a-there is no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination b-an absence of reasonable care results in injury to consumer or his property.

Judge’s reasoning:

Lord Buckmaster (dissent) Langridge v Levy: involved a vendor who sold a gun to a child, knowing it was dangerous. The gun exploded in the child’s hands, and the father was held to have a right of action in tort against the gunmaker. However, Park B, in his judgment, said: ‘we should pasue before we make a precedent by our decision which would be an authority for an action against the vendors, even of such instruments and articles as are dangerous in themselves, at the suit of any person whomsoever into whose hands they might happen to pass, and who should be injured thereby. This case may be dismissed from consideration. Previous cases refer to individual circumstances where liability has arisen, not a general rule.

The principle from Blacker v Lake & Elliot Ltd is: the breach of the

defendant’s contract with A to use care and skill in and about the manufacture or repair of an article does not of itself give any cause of action to B when he is injured by reason of the article proving to be defective. Liability cannot cross contracts

Exceptions to that rule occur when (1) an article is dangerous in itself and (2) where the article not in itself dangerous is in fact dangerous, by reason for some defect or any other reason, and this is known to the manufacturer. Exceptions to the Blacker principle

Authorities do not support the appellant. The principle contended for is that the manufacturer of any article, apart from contract, owes a duty to any person by whom the article is lawfully used to see that it has been carefully constructed… this conception is simply to misapply the tort doctrine applicable to sale and purchase. Reasoning behind the principle is ridiculous.

If such a duty exists, it must extend to every person who uses the article made, and to every product, including houses (if one step, why not fifty?) He is correct, but in his mind this extends too far.

Lord Anderson in Mullen v Barr, a case where a mouse was found in a bottle: “In a case like the present, where the goods of the defenders are widely distributed throughout Scotland, it would seem little short of outrageous to make them responsible to members of the public for the condition of the contents of every bottle which issues from their works. It is obvious that, if such responsibility attached to the defenders they might be called on to meet claims of damages which they could not possibly investigate or answer.” Agrees with Lord Anderson, it is ridiculous to hold manufacturer accountable for every item in a mass factory.

Lord Atkin (majority): The question is whether the manufacturer of an article of drink sold to him by a distributor, in circumstances which prevent the distributor or the ultimate purchaser or consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under any legal duty to the ultimate purchaser to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health. Loong statement of the issue.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Civilised standard

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 so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. Who counts as a neighbour?

Le Lievre v Gould, Lord Esher: “That case [Heaven v Pender] established that, under certain circumstances, one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If open man is near to another, or is near to the property of another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure his property.’ Duties without contract

I think this sufficiently states the truth if proximity be not confined to mere physical proximity, but be used, as I think it was intended, to extend to such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act. The neighbour/proximity principle exists beyond the physical to relations.

Lord Esher says that this doctrine includes the sale of goods to be used immediately…where it would be obvious to the supplier that the goods would in all probability be used at once before they had a reasonable opportunity for discovering any defect… This is deliberate, as it means to exclude goods which may have their condition altered over time, and calls attention to the proximate relationship.

A manufacturer puts up an article of food in a container which he knows will be opened by the actual consumer. There can be no inspection by any purchaser and no reasonable preliminary inspection by the consumer. Negligently, in the course of preparation, he allows the contents to be mixed with poison. It is said that the law of England and Scotland is that the poisoned consumer has no remedy against the negligent manufacturer. If this were the result of the authorities, I should consider the result a grave defect in the law, and so contrary to principle that I should hesitate long before following any decision in that effect which had not the authority of this House. This rule is confined to articles of common household use… where every one, including the manufacturer, knows that the articles will be used by other persons than the actual ultimate consumer… A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty of care to the consumer to take reasonable care. A common sense argument

What can be learned from this case....