What is the Neighbour Principle?

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee may injure your neighbour—those closely and directly affected by you.

Is a contract required to sue for negligence?

No. Donoghue v. Stevenson confirms that a manufacturer can owe a duty of care even without any contract with the injured person.

Who counts as a neighbour in law?

Anyone so closely and directly affected by your act that you should have them in mind when acting—like consumers using your product.

What happened in this case?

After drinking ginger beer from an opaque bottle, a decomposed snail was seen. The consumer suffered illness and sued the manufacturer for negligence.

What did the House of Lords decide?

By a 3–2 majority, it held that manufacturers owe a duty of care to end consumers they intend will use their products.

donoghue-v-stevenson-neighbour-principle

Donoghue v. Stevenson (The Neighbour Principle)

Tort — Negligence 1932 All ER Rep 1932 (decision), Published: 31 Oct 2025 House of Lords Gulzar Hashmi ~6 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: neighbour principle, duty of care, manufacturer liability SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: negligence, consumer safety, product, opaque bottle

Quick Summary

This case sets the Neighbour Principle—a simple test for duty of care in negligence. A consumer fell ill after a snail was found in a sealed, opaque ginger-beer bottle. Even without a contract, the House of Lords said the manufacturer owed a duty to the ultimate consumer.

Citation: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) All ER Rep.

Issues

Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to a consumer even when there is no contract between them?

Rules

Take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour.

A neighbour is anyone closely and directly affected by your act, whom you ought to have in contemplation when you act.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline showing café purchase, opaque bottle, snail discovery, illness, and legal claim

On 26 August 1928, a friend bought Mrs. Donoghue a ginger beer at Wellmeadow Café, Paisley.

The bottle was made of dark opaque glass; she drank about half.

When the rest was poured, the decomposed remains of a snail came out with the drink.

She suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis.

She could not sue in contract (no privity), so she sued the manufacturer for negligence.

Arguments

Appellant (Mrs. Donoghue)

Manufacturers should foresee that consumers will drink sealed products.
A hidden contaminant shows lack of reasonable care in production.
Duty exists even without contract.

Respondent (Stevenson)

No privity with Mrs. Donoghue; duty should be limited.
Claimed compliance with usual factory care and processes.

Judgment

The House of Lords, by a 3–2 majority, held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer. The absence of a contract did not block the claim.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure your neighbour.

Ratio

Manufacturers of products intended for direct consumer use owe a duty to end users who are closely and directly affected. Foreseeability of harm and proximity ground the duty, even without contractual relations.

Why It Matters

Foundational case for modern negligence and duty of care.
Shifts focus from contract to foreseeability & proximity.
Key for consumer protection and product liability reasoning.

Key Takeaways

Duty without contract is possible where harm is foreseeable.
Neighbour Principle defines the duty test.
Opaque, sealed products heighten manufacturer responsibility.
Proximity + foreseeability → actionable negligence.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SEAL → SEE → SAFETY.”

SEAL: Sealed product to end user.
SEE: Manufacturer must foresee harm to the consumer.
SAFETY: Take reasonable care; duty exists without contract.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to a consumer without contract between them?

Rule

Reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to neighbours—those closely and directly affected.

Application

Opaque bottle + decomposed snail → foreseeable risk to the drinker; manufacturer should have prevented contamination.

Conclusion

Duty owed; claim proceeds despite no privity.

Glossary

Duty of Care: A legal obligation to act with reasonable care toward those foreseeably affected by your actions.
Privity of Contract: A direct contractual link between parties; not required for negligence duty after this case.
Foreseeability: Ability to predict that certain acts may cause harm to specific persons.