What did Donoghue v Stevenson decide?

AGLC4 citation

The case is reported in the Appeal Cases (AC) at [1932] AC 562. It is also cited as [1932] UKHL 100 on BAILII. Under AGLC4, the AC is the preferred report series for House of Lords decisions. CaseSharp generates AGLC4 citations automatically for every authority in the corpus.

Background and facts

On 26 August 1928, May Donoghue visited the Wellmeadow Cafe in Paisley, Scotland. A friend ordered and paid for a bottle of ginger beer for her. The ginger beer was manufactured by David Stevenson and sold in an opaque brown glass bottle. Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer poured over ice cream. When the remainder was poured out, a decomposed snail floated from the bottle.

Donoghue became ill. She could not sue Stevenson in contract because she had not purchased the ginger beer herself. Her friend had bought it. The question was whether the manufacturer owed a duty of care directly to the consumer in the absence of any contractual relationship between them.

The case reached the House of Lords on a preliminary issue: assuming the facts as pleaded were true, did the law recognise a duty of care owed by the manufacturer to the ultimate consumer?

Issues before the court

1. Does a manufacturer of products owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of those products?
2. Can a duty of care exist in the absence of a contractual relationship between the parties?
3. If such a duty exists, what is its scope and when does it arise?

The ratio

The majority (Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan) held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer. Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented.

• A manufacturer of products which are sold in a form that makes it impossible for the consumer to discover any defect before use owes a duty of care to the consumer. This duty arises independently of any contract.
• The duty arises when the products reach the consumer in the form in which they left the manufacturer, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
• Lord Atkin formulated the general neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. A neighbour is any person so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when directing your mind to the acts or omissions in question.
• Negligence was recognised as an independent tort, not merely a breach of a pre-existing contractual or fiduciary duty. A duty of care can exist between parties who have no contractual relationship.

Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented. They held that the existing authorities did not support a general duty owed by a manufacturer to the ultimate consumer and that the proper remedy lay in contract, not in tort.

Key passages

Why Donoghue v Stevenson matters in Australian law

Donoghue v Stevenson is the foundational authority for negligence in Australia. It was first adopted in the Australian context through Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85, a Privy Council appeal from the High Court of Australia that extended the manufacturer's duty of care from food and drink to clothing and other consumer products.

The High Court of Australia has cited and applied Donoghue v Stevenson in hundreds of decisions. The key developments in the Australian duty of care framework include:

• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Privy Council on appeal from Australia), which confirmed that the manufacturer's duty extends beyond food and drink to any product reaching the consumer without reasonable opportunity for intermediate inspection.
• Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, where the High Court held that reasonable foreseeability is necessary but not sufficient to establish a duty of care. The court requires a close analysis of the relationship between the parties by reference to salient features.
• The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and equivalent legislation in each state and territory, which codified parts of the breach analysis (section 5B) but left the common law duty of care framework intact.
• The Ipp Review (2002), commissioned by the Commonwealth, led to the uniform Civil Liability Acts and was described as the most significant reform of negligence law in 70 years, a direct reference to the 1932 decision.

Today, negligence in Australia has four elements: duty of care, breach, causation, and damage. The duty of care analysis still begins with Lord Atkin's neighbour principle, refined by the High Court's salient features approach in Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 and Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649.

Treatment status

Donoghue v Stevenson has not been overruled. It remains the foundational authority for negligence in Australia, the United Kingdom, and across the common law world. The neighbour principle has been refined (particularly by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 and by the High Court of Australia in Sullivan v Moody) but the core holdings have never been departed from.

To verify whether a case is still good law and trace how later courts have treated it, see the good-law check guide. CaseSharp's treatment classification shows you at a glance how a case has been applied, distinguished, or overruled by later courts.

IRAC brief

Need to brief a different case? The IRAC guide walks through the method step by step.

Frequently asked questions

What is the AGLC4 citation for Donoghue v Stevenson?

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. In AGLC4 format for United Kingdom House of Lords decisions, the case name is italicised, followed by the year in square brackets, the report series abbreviation (AC for Appeal Cases), and the starting page number.

What is the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson?

Lord Atkin held that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. A neighbour is any person so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when you are directing your mind to the acts or omissions in question.

Is Donoghue v Stevenson still good law in Australia?

Yes. Donoghue v Stevenson remains the foundational authority for negligence in Australian law. It was adopted in Australia through Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 and has been cited and applied by the High Court of Australia in hundreds of subsequent decisions. The Civil Liability Acts in each state and territory now supplement but do not replace the common law principles it established.

How does Donoghue v Stevenson apply in Australian law today?

The neighbour principle is the starting point for any negligence claim in Australia. The High Court refined the duty of care test in Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562, holding that reasonable foreseeability is necessary but not sufficient. The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and equivalent state legislation now codify parts of the breach analysis, but the common law duty framework still traces back to Lord Atkin's formulation.

What are the four elements of negligence in Australia?

The four elements are: (1) duty of care, established through the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson and refined by Australian courts; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation, meaning the breach caused the harm; and (4) damage, meaning the plaintiff suffered a recognisable loss. All four elements must be proved on the balance of probabilities.