Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 - Essay Example The appellant drank the beer and only realized that there were remains of decomposed snail when she was about to finish taking the ginger beer. The appellant claimed that at the time of noticing the remains of the decomposed snail, it made her suffer from shock and complications related with gastro enteritis. She therefore sued the manufacturers of the beer for breach of duty of care and for being negligent giving rise to the appeal case to be determined. This case set the base for negligence cases and the factors that must be determined in order that it is established. The importance of the Donoghue case is that it set a foundation for cases based on breach of duty of care and the requirement for payment of damages and liability in case of a breach of duty of care. Donohue argued that the respondent as a manufacturer of a product meant for human consumption and that it should ensure that any foodstuff that it packaged in its products were fit for human consumption and not noxious in nature. ... The fact that it was bottled by the respondent and labeled with his name and the bottle sealed, it was upon the respondent to ensure that they have a system that would stop the snails from getting into the bottle. She therefore contended that the failure by the respondent to take these precautions led to her predicament and therefore it should be held liable for negligence. The respondent Mr Stevenson argued that as a producer of a product, he had no duty that it owed to its customers apart from that that comes about due to contractual obligations. He argued that the case would introduce a new principle that was not present previously, that of goods that are intended for human consumption sold to the public in a form in which it would have been difficult to investigate. Previously, the exception in such cases were that the goods should have been deemed to be dangerous in the strictest sense and if the manufacturer knew of the danger in the good. The decision in this case was not unan imous as some of the judges dissented. Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented from the judgment and dismissed the appeal on the basis of the case of Mullin v Barr1 where Lord Anderson stated that in cases where the goods of the defendant are those with a wider distribution all over Scotland. Moreover, it would be imprudent to make them liable for every other claims by the plaintiffs or the members of the public as they would be made to pay for the damages incurred which could not be possibly investigated. By citing the case of Winterbottom v Wright2, Lord Tomlin argued that allowing the appeal would be an injustice to the respondent as torts would always be brought against the