ArticleslgStudy

science

Donoghue v Stevenson

Donoghue v Stevenson is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Donoghue v Stevenson rather than just read about it. In short: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.

Donoghue v Stevenson — main illustration
Donoghue v Stevenson — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Donoghue v Stevenson belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Donoghue v Stevenson to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Donoghue v Stevenson from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unbeknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to Donoghue v Stevenson, liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the case). Being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify as either, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. However, the decision fundamentally created a new type of liability in law that did not depend upon any previously recognised category of tortious claims. This was an evolutionary step in the common law for tort and delict, moving from strict liability based upon direct physical contact to a fault-based system that only required injury. This evolution was taken further in the later decision of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 when it was held that actions should not be jointly pleaded in trespass and negligence, but in negligence alone.

Background and facts

On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928, during the Glasgow Trades Holiday, May Donoghue took a train to Paisley, Renfrewshire. In Paisley, she went to the Wellmeadow Café. A friend, who was with her, ordered a pear and ice for herself. Donoghue asked for a Scotsman ice cream float, a mix of ice cream and ginger beer. The owner of the café, Francis Minghella, brought over a tumbler of ice cream and poured ginger beer on it from a brown and opaque bottle labelled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley". Although the bottle was labelled as Stevenson's, McByde suggests it is possible it did not originally belong to him (Stevenson). Bottles were often reused, and in the process occasionally returned to the incorrect manufacturer. Moreover, Stevenson initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Donoghue. Donoghue drank some of the ice cream float. When her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle. Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from this sight, complaining of abdominal pain. According to her later statements of facts, she was required to consult a doctor on 29 August and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for "emergency treatment" on 16 September. She was subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. The ginger beer had been manufactured by David Stevenson, who ran a company producing both ginger beer and lemonade at 11 and 12 Glen Lane, Paisley, less than 1 mile (1,600 m) from the Wellmeadow Café. The contact details for the ginger beer manufacturer were on the bottle label and recorded by Donoghue's friend. Donoghue subsequently contacted and instructed Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city councillor whose firm had acted for the claimants in a factually similar case, Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd, less than three weeks earlier (see also George v Skivington). Despite the ruling in Mullen, Leechman issued a writ on Donoghue's behalf against Stevenson on 9 April 1929. The writ claimed £500 in damages, the same amount a claimant in Mullen had recovered at first instance, and £50 in costs. The total amount Donoghue attempted to recover would be approximately equivalent to £30,209 in 2025.

Condescendences The full allegations made by Donoghue were presented in five condescendences, which claimed that Stevenson had a duty of care to Donoghue to ensure that snails did not get into his bottles of ginger beer, but that he had breached this duty by failing to provide a system to clean bottles effectively, a system that would usually be used in the business and was necessary given that the ginger beer was intended for human consumption. The ineffectiveness of the cleaning system was alleged to result from the bottles being left in places "to which it was obvious that snails had freedom of access ... and in which, indeed, snails and snail trails were frequently found", an allegation described by lawyer and author Matthew Chapman as "somewhat gratuitous". This breach of duty was alleged to have caused Donoghue's subsequent illness. Stevenson responded to the condescendences by denying that any of his bottles of ginger beer had contained snails and "that the alleged injuries are grossly exaggerated ... any illness suffered by the [claimant] was due to the bad condition of her own health at the time". In response to the writ, Stevenson pleaded four main arguments:

that the claim had no legal basis; that the facts could not be substantiated; that he had not caused Donoghue any injury; that the claimed amount was excessive.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Donoghue v Stevenson illustration
Donoghue v Stevenson: Gilmour Street station where Donoghue arrived in Paisley
Gilmour Street station where Donoghue arrived in Paisley
Donoghue v Stevenson: Parliament House in Edinburgh, where the Court of Session sits
Parliament House in Edinburgh, where the Court of Session sits
Donoghue v Stevenson: The Palace of Westminster, where five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary heard Donoghue's appeal
The Palace of Westminster, where five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary heard Donoghue's appeal
Donoghue v Stevenson: The 1842 Versailles rail accident Lord Tomlin referred to, in which over 70 people died when a train derailed; the cause was a broken axle.[22]: 507
The 1842 Versailles rail accident Lord Tomlin referred to, in which over 70 people died when a train derailed; the cause was a broken axle.[22]: 507

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Donoghue v Stevenson

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Donoghue v Stevenson claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Donoghue v Stevenson before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Donoghue v Stevenson ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Donoghue v Stevenson

In research
Donoghue v Stevenson appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Donoghue v Stevenson in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Donoghue v Stevenson is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 1932 in British law, 1932 in Scotland, 1932 in case law, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Donoghue v Stevenson outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Donoghue v Stevenson” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Donoghue v Stevenson in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Donoghue v Stevenson means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Donoghue v Stevenson out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Donoghue v Stevenson in simple terms?

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.

Why does Donoghue v Stevenson matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Donoghue v Stevenson?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Donoghue v Stevenson.

Tags

  • 1932 in British law
  • 1932 in Scotland
  • 1932 in case law
  • Court of Session cases
  • Delict
  • Delict case law
  • Food safety in the United Kingdom
  • Food safety scandals
  • Ginger beer
  • History of Renfrewshire
  • House of Lords cases
  • Negligence case law

Keep exploring