The Tale of the Snail:

Donoghue v Stevenson
Group Number: A
Project number: 4

PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR

LAWYERS (English I)

Students Name: Jayant Nariyala

Roll Number: 35 (Thirty Five)
CLASS: B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), First Year, Second Semester

SUBMITTED TO: DR. PRASANNANSHU

2013
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Serial

Chapter

Page

No.
1

Acknowledgements

Introduction

3-4

Methodology

5-6

The Tale of the Snail: Donoghue v 7-9

Stevenson
Conclusions

References

9-10

Acknowledgments
First off, I would like to thank Dr Prasannanshu for affording me the opportunity to work on
this project. Next, I wish to mention the various legal databases (such as SCC Online,
Manupatra, et alia) that helped me find the original text of the case, and future cases which
referenced it. I would also like to thank all of my fellow students whom I asked for advice
regarding the correct method for completing various portions of the project.
Thank you.

Introduction

MAlister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson, to give the case its full name, is a
foundational case in Scots delict law and English tort law, decided on the 26th of May, 1932,
in the House of Lords. Previous action on the case had been taken in the Outer House of the
Court of Session ([1930] SN 117), and the case was appealed from the Inner House of the
Court of Session ([1930] SN 138). The ultimate opinion (or obiter) of the judge was that
manufacturers have a duty of care to the final consumers of their products if it is not possible
for defects to be identified before the goods are received.
This case was the primary causal factor in the creation of the modern concept of negligence,
establishing general, ecumenical principles whereby one person owed another person a duty
of care. It is known in common parlance as the Paisley snail or snail in the bottle case.
This case has been discussed extensively in legal circles, and was brought to my notice by the
Torts professor for the batch B.A., L.L.B. (Hons.), 2013-18, Sushila Maam. The rough facts
of the case are as follows: May Donoghue (nee McAllister) took a train to Paisley,
Renfrewshire, seven miles west of Glasgow, where she went to the Wellmeadow Caf. At
around 8:50 P.M. a friend of hers ordered a drink for herself and a Scotsman ice cream float
(a mix of ice cream and ginger beer) for Donoghue. The owner and proprietor of the caf
poured ginger beer on a tumbler of ice cream from an opaque brown bottle. Donoghue drank
some of this, and was then horrified when her friend, upon pouring out the rest of the ginger
beer, came upon a decomposed snail which floated out of the bottle. She of course felt
extremely disgusted, and later complained of abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with severe
gastroenteritis and shock.
Ultimately, she attempted to claim compensation from the manufacturer of the ginger beer,
one David Stevenson, who ran a company named after his identically-named father. A similar
case (videlicet Mullen v AG Barr & Co. Ltd) had been decided against the plaintiff less than
three weeks ago. However, despite the ruling in Mullen, Donoghues lawyer, one Walter
Leechman issued a writ on her behalf against Stevenson claiming 500 pounds in damages, the
same amount a claimant in the previous case had recovered at first instance. The total amount
Donoghue attempted to recover would be equivalent to more than 27,000 pounds in 2012.
I believe this topic (case) is important because, purely in terms of law, it resulted in a
landmark judgment, establishing the tort of Negligence, and laying down the doctrine of Duty
of Care to ones Neighbour. It also has great importance for Consumers Rights cases, and
minimum standards for manufacturers of edible and potable substances. From a literary

standpoint, this case represents a clash between business minded producers and the
vulnerable consumers of their products, as well as the struggle that the same people often
have to face when wronged, in the face of great opposition from (in todays time) greatly
economically superior individuals.
I have undertaken this study because I want to delve into the significance of the case from
both angles that I mentioned above, and because I take a deep personal interest in the
wellbeing and protection of innocent, vulnerable consumers of various products, susceptible
to harms that they do not even realise they have remedies for. By writing a short story based
on this case, I hope to provide a deeper understanding of May Donoghue, David Stevenson
and the Judges though processes. Also, I would attempt to explore the future cases which
have cited this case in Common Law jurisdictions when factually similar situations have
arisen.
I aim to find out the greater impact the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] has had on the
global legal community, where it is followed and where it has been rejected. I would attempt
to find which cases have cited this judgment before, and what situations it may be applicable
in. Also, I would aim to understand the situations of all the main individuals involved in the
original case.
The main opinions on the case are divided into either the supporters of the principle of the
Duty of Care to ones neighbour and the tort of Negligence, specifically with regard to
producers of consumable goods, or those who derisively dismiss the case, citing the lack of
proof regarding the existence of the snail at all. One such individual was Lord Justice
MacKinnon, who jocularly suggested that Donoghue did not really find a snail in the bottle;
this allegation was later repeated Lord Justice Jenkins in a 1954 Court of Appeal practice
note. However, they were both unaware that the real reason the case had not gone on was the
fact that Stevenson had passed away before the judgment could be pronounced.
It is commonly held that most of what happened at Wellmeadow Caf is not proven and will
not be known for certain. However, the principles established are what matter far more than
the mere material facts of the case, which is true for almost any case as far as the judicial
system as a whole is concerned.

Most of the material facts in this section have been culled from various legal databases such
as West Law, and books by publishing houses like LexisNexis, as well as texts stored on
JSTOR.

Methodology

I basically set out to write a short story based on the case Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932. I
used various online resources, such as West Law, the legal database, and other verified legal
websites such as IndianKanoon.com. Though I must admit that I took recourse to Wikipedia
at one point, I used only the cited sections of their article on the subject, after verifying the
cited material myself. As far as printed material is concerned, I referred to the summary and
description of the case as found within the module for the first year class, Law of Torts - I
compiled and edited by Dr Sushila.
After reading up on the relevant materials, and reflecting on the facts of the case, as well as
the necessarily present ambiguities regarding the correctness of certain facts (most crucially
and fundamentally, of course, the very existence of the snail itself), and the deeper
significance of the case itself, including the principles of Duty of Care to ones Neighbour,
and the repercussions of it, like establishing the tort of Negligence, I set my mind to adapting
said case into the form of a short story. I meditated on the generally accepted facts, and also
consulted some opinions on the case, including R.F.V. Heustons 1957 text, Donoghue v.
Stevenson in Retrospect, published in the Modern Law Review by Wiley-Blackwell, and
Keith Pattons 2012 text, Personal injury: Snail Trail, in the New Law Journal, published by
LexisNexis.
I decided to give the short story I was to write a somewhat human touch by attempting to
detail in some detail what must have gone through the minds of Donoghue, her friend, and
Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, as well as the judges that ultimately gave the
verdict (three in favour, two dissenting judgments) at the level of the House of Lords. Though
of course I gave some thought to the opinions of the judges at the Outer House and Inner
house level, I did not consider those judgments of equivalent importance, since they were
ultimately overturned by the House of Lords.
Also, I spent a lot of time looking into future cases that referenced Donoghue v Stevenson,
and the overall effects of the principle of Duty of Care and the establishment of the tort of
Negligence. These have been multifarious and manifold, with far ranging effects, though
these may be said to follow in the logical course of reason followed by the judicial systems at
the global, multinational level. I reflected deeply on the actual case itself and the situation of
the hapless final consumers of products that they could not claim damages for, if they so
happened to incur any loss or damage from the consumption of the same. The situation today
seems absurd, with strong Consumer Protection laws in force in most developed and

developing nations of the world, but it was the comparatively harsh ground reality at the time.
The amelioration to this situation provided by the judgment finally given by the House of
Lords, and the impact of the quintessential ratio decedendi on future cases and actions of
consumers and producers was something I gave a lot of thought to.
As far as the actual process of writing the story is concerned, I meditated on the facts of the
case, the situation of the main characters, the chronological sequence of events, and the
historical and legal background of the case and the individuals concerned with it, and thought
of the action taken by each of them as a cumulative whole of their collective thought process.
It saddened me greatly that Stevenson unfortunately happened to pass away before the
pronouncement of the judgment of the House of Lords (against him, as it were), and I felt
somewhat happy for May Donoghue (nee McAllister). The solicitor she hired to fight her
case, Walter Leechman, was someone who really inspired me personally, since he was
arguing a case for someone in which there was a high degree of probability that he would
lose, since the odds were stacked against him, having lost just such a case (with a rat being
found instead of a snail) not three weeks ago. The moral fortitude, courage and conviction of
that individual gave me hope at a personal level, and were crucial factors both in my decision
to conduct my project principally on this topic, and write the short story that forms the focal
crux of it to the fullest of my capabilities.
Now, without further ado, I present, The Tale of the Snail: Donoghue v Stevenson.

The Tale of the Snail:

Donoghue v Stevenson

May McAllister was born on the 4th of July in 1898, in the parish of Cambuslang, Glasgow, to
James and Mary Jane McAllister. On the Sunday evening of the 26th of August, 1928, she
reflected on her marriage to Henry Donoghue, whose surname she carried to the day, despite
having separated from him that very year. They had four children together, but to their
collective sorrow, all but one, Henry, her darling Henry, were born prematurely, dying
untimely deaths within two months of having entered this earthly domain; straight from the
cradle to the grave. This had always been a source of great anguish to her, but she had learned
to overcome the loss; she realised that it was indeed true what people often said, time heals
all woundsor at least alleviates them, to some minor extent.
She had moved into her brothers flat a 49 Kent Street, Glasgow, and was presently on a train
to Paisley, Renfrewshire, only seven miles west of her home, to meet up with a friend at the
Wellmeadow Caf, celebrating the Glasgow Trades Holiday. It was an old friend that she had
not met for a while, but one that she was looking forward to meeting nonetheless. She did not
leave home much, and relished every little opportunity to escape the confines of the same, no
matter how mundane the nature of the resulting freedom.
As she got off at Paisley, she sighed and walked to the caf, reflecting on her life so far. There
had been many times she had suffered, but never once had her faith in God waivered; in fact,
it could be said to be the crucial factor in her having persisted for so long. Though she had
undergone many trials, she had always had a very strong resolve, and never took recourse to
alcohol. Even as she saw her friend, and entered the caf, her friend ordered her usual aperitif
of choice: a Scotsman ice cream float. She did love ginger beer; alcohol she could never quite
stand, and this was as good a replacement as any to her sensitive palate.
The owner and proprietor, Francis Minghella, walked over to them, and greeted them with a
warm smile. They were regulars at the Wellmeadow, and talked to the mild-mannered man
often. May sat, weary, but smiling nonetheless, since part of her resolve was to never let other
people know of her sorrow: she saw this as a sign of profound weakness, and so seemed to be
immersed in a form of stoic indifference.
Francis brought over a tumbler of fresh vanilla ice cream, and poured a generous dose of
sweet ginger beer on it from a dark brown bottle. D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley, it said, as
May dully noted, and drank of it, carrying on the idle banter with her friend.

After she had drained some of her beverage, her friend poured some more on the remaining
lump of ice cream, and that was when it happened: the most disgusting experience May had
ever had; a gooey brown mess floated out of the bottle and into her tall glass tumbler.
Looking closer, she found to her horror that it was the body of a decomposed snail. She had
always hated the slimy creatures, and this was more than she could take; she felt physically ill
at the horrid sight of it, and felt an ache in her stomach.
Later that night, the pain in her stomach intensified; she had to see a doctor on the 29th, and
was admitted to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary on the 16th of September. The doctors were
fairly kind, but could do nothing to ease her innate dislike of hospitals and anything related to
themthis stemmed back to the premature death of her only son.
Eventually, after she was released from the hospital, the doctors gave her the news: she was
suffering severe gastroenteritis, and a case of nervous shock. May felt shake, but she was
bound to attain justice for the wrong committed against her.
May was not satisfied with this state of affairs. After asking into the matter, she found out that
the ginger beer had been manufactured by one David Stevenson, the name she had observed
on the bottle last month. He produced both lemonade and ginger beer at 11 and 12 Glen Lane,
less than a mile away from the Wellmeadow caf. Her friend had noted the contact details,
and fortunately was able to furnish them when needed.
May contacted Walter Leechman, a local solicitor and city councillor. Though he had lost a
factually similar case less than three weeks ago (Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd), she trusted in
his abilities as a lawyer and an individual. He acted promptly, and filed a writ on her behalf
against Stevenson on 9 April, 1929, claiming 500 pounds in damages.
Leechman claimed that Stevenson owed a duty of care to her and any other consumers, to
ensure that snails or any other creatures for that matter were not present in any of his
products, and stated that he had breached said duty, and failed to provide a system to
effectively keep clean the bottles he used.
Stevenson said that none of his bottle of ginger beer had ever contained snails, and the
allegations raised against him were completely baseless and false. He said the alleged injuries
had been grossly exaggerated, and any injuries suffered by the claimant were because of her
own state of health at the time.

This last part greatly rattled May, and riled her as well. She was an honest, fair woman, and
she knew she had been wronged by this arrogant, dishonest man. She pressed Leechman to
take up the case in court, though Stevenson had also claimed that the claim had no legal
basis, no substantiated facts; he had not caused any direct injury to Donoghue, and the
amount demanded was excessive.
The first action was held in the Court of Sessions in front of Lord Moncrieff, on 21 May,
1929. After an adjournment, Francis, the friendly proprietor, was also added as a defender on
the 5th of June, but the claim against him was abandoned on the 19th of November. May held
no grudge against him, and it was really not his fault in any way that the snail had happened
to be in the bottle. Her resolve to prove her case against Stevenson grew stronger, though she
technically lost the case: she had no contractual relationship with Minghella, and he could not
have examined the contents of the bottle, so both Stevenson and Minghella were awarded 108
pounds against her; however, Francis, being a kind and polite man, understood that
Leechman had been behind the claim against him, and May did not end up paying him after
all.
The case was then heard by Lord Moncrieff in the Outer House, on the 27th of June, 1930. He
held that as a general principle, there ought to be a liability for negligent preparation of food.
Mays heart rejoiced, and Stevenson frowned; there was no legal basis for this judgment
whatsoever! He also disregarded the lost case, Mullen, saying it was too close a reading of
precedent opinions.
She took the case to the Inner House, where it was heard by the same judges who found
against Mullen: Lord Alness, Lord Ormidale, Lord Hunter and Lord Anderson. In their
judgment on the 13th of November, 1930, they referred back to and bolstered their previous
statements in Mullen, and decided against her. Stevenson smirked in a self-satisfied manner,
but Donoghue would not give him the satisfaction of seeing her anguish.
May simply would not be disheartened. She would take the case to the highest authority: the
House of Lords.
She filed a petition to appeal to the House of Lords on 25 February, 1931, pursuing the case
in forma pauperis...she had not considered this very applicable circumstance before, and
could have kicked herself for not doing this before. Her life was about to change; she knew it.

Her legal team agreed to work pro bono; she was not asked to provide security for costs in
case she lost. The appeal was heard on the 10th and 11th of December, 1931, by Lord
Buckmaster, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan. They argued
that Stevenson owed a duty to take reasonable care in the manufacture of his ginger beer,
since the sealed bottles were opaque, and intended for human consumption.
Stevensons counsel, Wilfrid Normand KC (Solicitor General for Scotland, later to become a
Law Lord) argued that no manufacturer had any such duty of care to anyone with whom he is
not in a contractual relationship.
After an unusual delay of five months, the court ruled in Donoghues favour, 3-2. The
majority was composed of Lords Atkin, Thankerton and Macmillan, while the dissenting
judgments were given by Lords Buckmaster and Tomlin, citing previous such cases, and
sticking to established laws.
Sadly, before the case could be settled, Stevenson passed away on the 12th of November, aged
69 years. The claim was ultimately settled out of court in December 1934; May only claimed
200 pounds out of the original 500.
May divorced her husband Henry in 1945, and used her maiden name again. The case had
been settled in her favour, and she was content. Nothing could upset her now.

Conclusion
Though the case itself may not seem significant, it established some significant legal
practices:
1. The doctrine of duty of care to ones neighbour

This is a quintessential factor in establishing and proving liability for commission of civil
wrongs under the law of torts. It is basically a principle that seeks to determine whether or not
an individual owed a duty to take a certain basic minimal amount of care or caution to do or
not do something that they are obliged to so follow through with, by mere virtue of the fact
that they have a proximate relationship with the
2. The Tort of Negligence
Negligence is now one of the most frequently utilised types of tortious remedy available to
plaintiffs. It can be expressed in a variety of forms, usually classified under the tripartite
heads of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance. It essentially means that when one party
(the defendant in a tort suit) acted in a manner that violated the principle of duty of care to
ones neighbour, or other well-established principle in the law of torts, their behaviour was
negligent of the wellbeing of the affected party (plaintiff), who suffered an unwanted harm as
a direct consequence of the actions of the defendant.
3. The case itself as a precedent in Common Law jurisdictions; Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
This case had led to the establishment of important principles involved in the law of torts,
which are followed in various countries throughout the world where the law of torts is given
any import under the common law doctrine (videlicet, Canada, most US States, India,
Scotland et alia). It has been cited often in future judgements, such as Caparo Industries plc v
Dickman.

Bibliography
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect, Heuston, R.F.V., 1957, Modern Law Review.
2. Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] UKHL 100. (Accessed on Westlaw India).