Ratio Decidendi
A manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the products reach the consumer in the form in which they left the manufacturer, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination. More broadly, you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour — that is, persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
তথ্য
Mrs Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Scotland, with a friend. The friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by Stevenson. The bottle was made of dark opaque glass so the contents could not be seen. After Mrs Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer, her friend poured the remainder into a glass, and the decomposed remains of a snail floated out. Mrs Donoghue alleged she suffered shock and severe gastroenteritis as a result. She could not sue the café owner in contract (her friend had made the purchase) and instead sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, in tort.
রায়ের সারসংক্ষেপ
The House of Lords held (by a 3–2 majority) that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue as the ultimate consumer of the product. Lord Atkin delivered the leading speech, formulating the famous 'neighbour principle': you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. Lord Atkin drew on the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan to derive this general principle. Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan agreed. Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin dissented, holding that no duty of care existed between manufacturer and consumer absent a contractual relationship.
মূল উদ্ধৃতি
"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."
— Lord Atkin
"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."
— Lord Atkin
"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 to the consumer to take that reasonable care."
— Lord Atkin
পরবর্তী ব্যবহার
Universally followed as the foundational authority for the modern law of negligence throughout all common law jurisdictions.
The neighbour principle was refined into the three-stage test in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
Applied extensively in product liability, professional negligence, and pure economic loss cases, though its scope has been narrowed in some areas (e.g., Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991]).