In today’s society we have a duty to not act negligently towards people around us; if we do, we can be held legally liable. The establishment of this principle is found in the 1928 in the famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. Most lawyers who studied in a common law jurisdiction might remember one of their very first tort classes in which they would most certainly have studied this case which was lead by Lord Atkin. Because of the Donoghue case, today if you are the victim of someone’s negligent behaviour, you have the right to make a claim for compensation. This can be done by contacting one of our litigation solicitors.

The concept of negligence, which is the core of tort law, was born out of the following fact situation. Mrs. Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend, who ordered and paid for a ginger beer for her. A portion of drink was poured from an opaque container into a glass where Mrs. Donoghue drank from. Her friend then poured the rest of it into her glass when the remnants of a decomposed snail fell out of the bottle into the glass. Later, the Plaintiff, Mrs. Donoghue suffered from stomach pain, and was diagnosed by her doctor as have gastroenteritis and as being in a severe state of shock.

Mrs. Donoghue’s solicitor had to come up with a creative argument to get around the fact that nobody was in breach of contract with Mrs. Donoghue, yet she had suffered a harm caused by the manufacturer of the drink. Negligence and the duty of care concept existed; however, the duty was only owed in very specific circumstances, for example where there was a contract between 2 parties or is a manufacturer was acting fraudulently. At the time of the incident, the duty did not extend to the situation at hand.

The case went all the way to the House of Lords where Lord Atkin gave his judgment in which he coined the ‘neighbour principle.’ He stated that “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 that are called in question.” Included in this concept, of course was the manufacturer of the drink that Mrs. Donoghue had. For the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff was awarded £500.

Disclaimer