Scottish litigation Donoghue v. Stevenson (Ginger Beer Case) 1932 is a well-known English case that helped to establish the doctrine of negligence and influenced the law of torts. It is a significant tort law case. The case had higher importance since it established the fundamental legal basis of the duty of care notion. Lord Atkin developed the test, which is also known as the "neighbour test" or "neighbour principle."

This case which established the doctrine of negligence, has been a topic of discussion among renowned jurists, academics, and law students around the world. The historic decision is recognised with establishing the legal precedent for a manufacturer's end-consumer accountability.

Facts
The plaintiff May Donoghue went to Wellmeadow café with her friend and ordered Scotsman ice crem floats which is made up of ice cream and ginger beer. The beer was poured on the ice cream. It was then revealed that there was a snail at the bottom of the beer bottle.

Donoghue claimed that the sight of the deceased snail had made her sick and given her gastrointestinal pain. She also was identified with shock and gastroenteritis when she visited a doctor.

Issue:
According to recognised case law, the question for the House of Lords was whether the manufacturer owed Mrs. Donoghue a duty of care in the lack of contractual relations. Donoghue was basically a test case to assess whether she had a claim, not whether she was entitled to monetary damages.The law of negligence at the time was fairly limited and could only be used if a contractual relationship had already been formed. Manufacturers had no contractual obligation to consumers when releasing a product on the market, with the exception of the following:

• If the manufacturer had the knowledge that the product was hazardous due to a flaw and kept this information from the customer (i.e., fraud).
• The product already was dangerous and the manufacturer failed to inform the customer of this.

Given that the plaintiff and the manufacturer did not enter into a contract, could a negligence claim be brought against them?

Legal principles
The legal principles established in this case are:

Negligence
The House of Lords decision confirmed that negligence constitutes a tort. In the event that a respondent's negligence leads in the plaintiff's harm or property loss, the plaintiff can file a civil lawsuit against the respondent. Prior to this change, the plaintiff had to present evidence of a contractual arrangement, such as the sale of a good or an agreement to render services, in order to prove negligence. Donoghue could not establish a contractual relationship with Stevenson since she had not purchased the beverage, but Lord Atkin's decision determined that Stevenson was nevertheless responsible for the quality of his goods.

Duty of care
The case demonstrated that producers have a responsibility to take care of the users or final customers of their goods. "A manufacturer of products, which he sells... to reach the ultimate customer in the form in which they left him... bears a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care," according to Lord Atkin's ratio descend. This precedent has changed, and it now serves as the foundation for regulations that defend consumers from tainted or defective goods. These safeguards were first established by common law, but many have subsequently been enshrined in law, such as the Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth, 1974).

The Neighbour principle
Lord Atkin's contentious "neighbour principle," which expanded the scope of the negligence tort to include those other than the tortfeasor and the immediate party, was developed in the Donoghue v. Stevenson case. It created a discussion about precisely who may be harmed by negligent behaviour. Donoghue was not a party to the contract; rather, she was a "neighbour" who had received the ginger beer as a present rather than as a gift.

According to Atkin, you must exercise reasonable caution to prevent any actions or inactions that you may fairly anticipate as likely to cause harm to a neighbour. So, in law, who is my neighbour? The response appears to be those who are so personally and deeply impacted by my action that I should keep them in mind while

Arguments
Appellants

• The respondent manufactured the ginger beer bottle and sold it to the general public for consumption; the bottle had labels bearing the respondent's company's name, and it was the respondent who utilised metal caps to seal them.
• The appellants claim that the respondents violated both of these obligations and contributed to this incident. The respondent had a duty of care to the appellant because they allowed the general public, which included the appellant, to eat a product they produced, packaged, labelled, and sealed without giving the customer a chance to inspect the contents.
• Additionally, the appellants argued that the res ipsa loquitur principle applied in this specific case. The producers' carelessness was "spoken for itself" by the snail that was found inside the bottle.
• To support their allegation, the appellants largely referenced the following:
  • George v. Skivington (1869) - This was an exceptional case that had established that even in the lack of a contractual connection, consumers of the product were still entitled to ordinary care.
  • Heaven v. Pender (1883) [Sir Brett M. R's observation] - "Whenever a reasonable person would anticipate that injury would be produced if he did not employ reasonable care and skill," he said, "he bears a duty in tort."
  • Dominion Natural Gas v. Collins and Perkins (1909) [Lord Denuedin's observation] - declared that there was a common law responsibility to take measures for those who sent out items that were intrinsically damaging to everyone.
     
• Respondents:
  • The defendants said that the allegations of damage to the appellant were exaggerated and that the appellant's health issues, rather than the purported snail, were to blame. As a result, the claims did not provide a strong foundation for a summons and were irrelevant.
  • To support their allegation, the respondents took reference from the following cases:
    • Mullen v. AG Barr & Co Ltd. (1929) - The circumstance in this case was remarkably similar to the one in question, except that the dead mice were found rather than a snail. Due to the lack of a contractual relationship, the Scottish Sessions Court dismissed the case, and applied that decision to throw out the current lawsuit as well.
    • Winterbottom v. Wright (1842) - The court found that there was no duty of care due by the manufacturer to a third party in this case, which was the main point of argument.
    • Blacker v. Lake & Elliot, Ltd (1912) - As per Hamilton J., a breach of a contract's duty does not give other parties a legal foundation for a lawsuit.

Judgement:
The ruling comprises three main parts:

• Negligence is a separate and independent tort and,
• a duty can also be established without a contract manufacturers have a duty to the customers who use their goods.

However, Lord Atkin's further development of the neighbour concept is the main result of Donoghue and what it is best recognised for. Lord Atkin mentioned:

"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."

The appellant's case went against the established principles, as according Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin, who delivered a dissenting opinion. Lord Buckmaster urged the application of the exception to only those items which were intrinsically harmful and emphasised the importance of preserving the distinction both dangerous and non-dangerous products.

The justices questioned the validity of George v. Skivington (1869) and voiced worry about the potential for a chain reaction of litigation in the event that the manufacturers' scope of obligation was expanded. According to Lord Buckmaster, placing such a large burden on the industrial sector would be irresponsible on both a social and financial level. Lord Tomlin believed that such an accomplishment was illogical.

The final ruling of the case was in the favour of the appellant, Mrs. Donoghue with the ratio of 3:2 majority. As there was a clear indication of duty of care by the manufacturer to Mrs. Donoghue.

Current scenario
The case of Mrs. Donoghue and her struggles as a result of the snail in her ginger beer served as the foundation for the development and evolution of negligence law. Where may we end up in the next ten years? In the area of real estate, I'm witnessing an upsurge in negligence lawsuits following unsuccessful real estate developments. The Courts are currently dealing with complex concerns arising from bitcoin fraud outside of the property sector. When losses are suffered as a result of legal or illegal schemes, focus shifts to the expert advice that was given. This is now occurring in respect to tax advice received in relation to tax saving strategies that HMRC has successfully contested.

Conclusion
Thus, Donoghue v. Stevenson is effective in establishing a bar for the required level of care. However, as legal turbulence grew more intense, the established standard began to seem overly straightforward. In Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman (1990), a three-step neighbour test with increased complexity was created. However, Lord Atkin's initial idea served as the foundation for the exam. This idea has been extended further in other situations. This case is a landmark case for negligence but mainly duty of care. On the grounds of this case Lord Atkin developed the "neighbour principle".

Cases Mentioned:

• Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman (1990)
• George v. Skivington (1869)
• Heaven v. Pender (1883)
• Dominion Natural Gas v. Collins and Perkins (1909)
• Mullen v. AG Barr & Co Ltd. (1929)
• Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)
• Blacker v. Lake & Elliot Ltd. (1912)