This case established the neighbour principle or test in tort law.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, Mrs Donoghue visited her friend who bought a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream from a retailer and given to her. The beer came in a dark opaque glass bottle. Some ginger beer was poured out into a tumbler and the Appellant had drank the beer. Her friend then proceeds to pour the remainder of the beer in the bottle into her tumbler and a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle. As a result, the Appellant suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis. Thus, she commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, the Respondent.
Issue of the Case
Whether the Respondent as a manufacturer owed the Appellant a duty of care in the absence of contractual relationship?
Judgment of the Court
The general principle in ordinary case is that a manufacturer is under no duty to anyone with whom he is not in any contractual relation. At that time, there was only 2 exception namely:
Where the article is dangerous per se.
Where the article is dangerous to the knowledge of the manufacturer, but the Appellant submits that the duty owed by a manufacturer to members of the public is not capable of so strict a limitation, and that the question whether a duty arises independently of contract depends upon the circumstances of each case. (the manufacturer knew that the beer was defective or dangerous but hide it from his consumers)
The Court held that the liability of negligence is no doubt based on a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. Lord Atkin develop the neighbour principle further and said:
"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. 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."
When a manufacturer puts upon a market an article intended for human consumption in a form which precludes the possibility of an examination of the article by the retailer or the consumer, he is liable to the consumer for not taking reasonable care to see that the article is not injurious to health. In the circumstances of this case the respondent owed a duty to the appellant to take care that the ginger beer which he manufactured, bottled, labelled and sealed (the conditions under which the ginger-beer was put upon the market being such that it was impossible for the consumer to examine the contents of the bottles), and which he invited the appellant to buy, contained nothing which would cause her injury.
Principle of the Case
The neighbour test is used to determine whether a Defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant by determining whether the Defendant’s act or omission which the Defendant can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his neighbour.
Comments