Donoghue v Stevenson

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a House of Lords ruling that reshaped Scots delict law and English tort law. It set the groundwork for modern negligence law across common law systems, including Scotland, by establishing broad principles around the duty of care. Often called the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, it centered on Mrs May Donoghue, who drank ginger beer at a Paisley café. Unknown to anyone, a decomposed snail sat inside the bottle. She became ill and took legal action against the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. Before this case, personal injury claims in tort usually required proof of direct physical harm (trespass to the person) or indirect harm (trespass on the case). Getting sick from a contaminated substance didn't fit either category, so the standard view was that Mrs Donoghue had no valid claim. But the decision created a new type of legal liability, independent of any earlier tort categories. This marked an evolutionary step in common law for tort and delict, shifting from strict liability based on direct contact to a fault-based system requiring only injury. This development was extended later in Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, which ruled that actions should not be jointly pleaded in trespass and negligence, but only in negligence. **Background and facts**

On the evening of Sunday 26 August 1928, during the Glasgow Trades Holiday, May Donoghue took a train to Paisley, Renfrewshire. There, she visited the Wellmeadow Café. A friend 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 café owner, Francis Minghella, brought a tumbler of ice cream and poured ginger beer over it from a brown, opaque bottle labeled "D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley." Though the label named Stevenson, McByde suggests the bottle may not have originally belonged to him. Bottles were often reused and sometimes returned to the wrong manufacturer. Stevenson initially claimed he didn't issue bottles matching Donoghue's description. Donoghue drank some of the float. When her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail also floated out. Donoghue said she felt ill from the sight, complaining of abdominal pain. According to her later statements, she saw a doctor on 29 August and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for "emergency treatment" on 16 September. She was later diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. The ginger beer was made by David Stevenson, who ran a company producing ginger beer and lemonade at 11 and 12 Glen Lane, Paisley, less than a mile from the café. The bottle label had Stevenson's contact details, which Donoghue's friend recorded. Donoghue then contacted and hired Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city councillor whose firm had represented claimants in a similar case, Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd, less than three weeks earlier (see also George v Skivington). Despite the Mullen ruling, Leechman issued a writ on Donoghue's behalf against Stevenson on 9 April 1929. The writ sought £500 in damages—the same amount a Mullen claimant had recovered at first instance—plus £50 in costs. The total would be roughly equivalent to £30,209 in 2025. **Condescendences**

Donoghue's full allegations were laid out in five condescendences. They claimed Stevenson owed a duty of care to ensure snails didn't get into his ginger beer bottles, but he breached this duty by failing to set up an effective cleaning system—one typical in the trade and necessary since the drink was for human consumption. The cleaning system was alleged to be ineffective because bottles were 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," a claim lawyer and author Matthew Chapman called "somewhat gratuitous." This breach was said to have caused Donoghue's illness. Stevenson responded by denying any of his bottles contained snails and arguing "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." He raised four main defenses: the claim had no legal basis; the facts couldn't be proven; he hadn't caused Donoghue any injury; and the claimed amount was excessive. **Legal background**

Injuries from defective products were typically claimed through a contract of sale between seller and consumer. But Donoghue had no contract with café owner Minghella—she hadn't bought the ginger beer. Her friend had a contract by placing the order but suffered no injury. Neither had a contract with manufacturer Stevenson. So Donoghue had to sue for negligence.