A bottle of ginger beer, a café in Paisley and an alleged decomposed snail produced the most famous case in the common law. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, and Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle became the foundation of the modern law of negligence.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]: The Snail in the Bottle and the Birth of Modern Negligence
30th Sep 2026, author: admin
| CASE AT A GLANCE | |
|---|---|
| Citation | [1932] AC 562; [1932] UKHL 100; 1932 SC (HL) 31 |
| Court | House of Lords (appeal from the Court of Session, Scotland) |
| Judges | Majority: Lords Atkin, Thankerton and Macmillan. Dissenting: Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin |
| Date | 26 May 1932 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed 3:2; manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumer |
ARTICLE TEXT
Every law student in the common law world meets the snail in the bottle early in their studies, and for good reason. Donoghue v Stevenson, decided by the House of Lords on 26 May 1932, transformed the law of negligence from a scattered collection of specific duties into a general principle of liability. Almost a century later, its reasoning still shapes the law of tort in the United Kingdom, Bangladesh and across the Commonwealth.
The Facts
On the evening of 26 August 1928, May Donoghue went with a friend to the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, near Glasgow. The friend bought her a ginger beer, made by David Stevenson, a manufacturer of soft drinks. The bottle was made of dark, opaque glass, so its contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue drank some of the ginger beer. When her friend poured the rest into her glass, the remains of a decomposed snail allegedly floated out. Mrs Donoghue said she suffered shock and severe gastroenteritis.
She had a problem. Because her friend had bought the drink, she had no contract with the café owner, and so no claim for breach of contract. Her only possible claim was against the manufacturer, in negligence. But the law at the time recognised a duty of care between manufacturer and consumer only in narrow situations, such as dangerous goods or fraud. The Court of Session in Scotland dismissed her claim, and she appealed to the House of Lords.
It is important to remember that the House of Lords never decided whether there really was a snail. The appeal was on a preliminary point of law: assuming her allegations were true, did she have a case?
The Decision
By a majority of three to two, the House of Lords held that she did. Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan formed the majority. Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented, warning that such a duty would open the door to endless claims.
The narrow rule of the case, its ratio decidendi, is that a manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the products are sold in a form that shows they are meant to reach the consumer as they left the manufacturer, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and where the manufacturer knows that a lack of reasonable care could injure the consumer.
The Neighbour Principle
The case is famous above all for a wider passage in Lord Atkin’s speech. He asked who, in law, is my neighbour. His answer was that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your neighbours, in this legal sense, are persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when you act.
This was a general test for the existence of a duty of care, based on reasonable foreseeability and proximity. Lord Macmillan added another enduring line: the categories of negligence are never closed. The law could now recognise new duties as society and technology changed.
What Happened Next
Mrs Donoghue never proved her case at trial. David Stevenson died later in 1932, and the claim was settled with his executors. But the principle took on a life of its own. It was applied in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) to underwear containing harmful chemicals, and extended far beyond products in cases such as Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970). In Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990), the House of Lords added the requirement that imposing a duty be fair, just and reasonable in new situations. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018), the UK Supreme Court confirmed that courts should develop the law incrementally, by analogy with established categories.
Why It Matters for Bangladesh
Bangladesh has no general statute on negligence, and its courts rely on the common law principles that Donoghue v Stevenson established. Its reasoning underlies claims for road accidents, medical negligence and defective products, and it informed the modern consumer protection framework. For University of London LLB students, the case is the starting point of every tort essay on duty of care. For practitioners, it remains a reminder that a claim which seems impossible under existing rules may yet change the law.
Sources
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html
- Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/4.html
Recent Landmark Cases - International
Bangladesh/Myanmar (ITLOS 2012): How Bangladesh Won Its Place in the Bay of Bengal
In its first maritime boundary case, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea drew the boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal on 14 March 2012, adjusting the line to reflect Bangladesh's concave coast and delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles for the first time. CASE AT A [...]
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court of India Confronts Workplace Sexual Harassment
After a social worker was gang-raped for trying to stop a child marriage, women's groups asked India's Supreme Court to act. In 1997 the Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment, which served as law for sixteen years and inspired Bangladesh's own guidelines. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Vishaka v State of Rajasthan [...]
The Nuremberg Judgment (1946): When Individuals Were First Held Responsible for Crimes Against International Law
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg tried the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in 1945–46. Its judgment established that individuals, not only states, can be punished for crimes against international law, and that official position and superior orders are no defence. CASE AT A GLANCE Tribunal International Military Tribunal (United States, United Kingdom, France, Soviet [...]
Nicaragua v United States (1986): The ICJ Rules on Force, Intervention and Self-Defence
In 1986 the International Court of Justice held that the United States had breached international law by supporting the contra rebels and mining Nicaragua's ports. The judgment set out the modern law on the use of force, self-defence and the attribution of rebel conduct to states. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Military and Paramilitary Activities [...]
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania) 1949: The ICJ’s First Judgment
When two British warships struck mines off the Albanian coast in 1946, killing 44 sailors, the dispute became the first contentious case decided by the International Court of Justice. Its principles on state responsibility and passage through straits are still cited today. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, Judgment, [...]
R (Miller) v Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General [2019] UKSC 41: The Prorogation Case
In September 2019 an eleven-justice UK Supreme Court unanimously held that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, because it frustrated Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Parliament had never been prorogued. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] [...]