Precedent in actionPrecedent in actionThe operation of the doctrine of precedent is The operation of the doctrine of precedent is easier to understand by looking at specific easier to understand by looking at specific examples.examples.

The English case of The English case of Donoghue v. Stevenson Donoghue v. Stevenson 19321932 is a landmark case, because the is a landmark case, because the fundamental legal principle of negligence fundamental legal principle of negligence was established, and later applied in was established, and later applied in Australia.Australia.

Donoghue v StevensonDonoghue v Stevenson

““The Snail in the Bottle Case”The Snail in the Bottle Case”

The factsThe facts• A friend of Mrs Donoghue bought her a A friend of Mrs Donoghue bought her a

bottle of ginger beer. bottle of ginger beer. • The beer was served in a dark, opaque The beer was served in a dark, opaque

bottle. bottle. • Mrs Donoghue had drunk about half the Mrs Donoghue had drunk about half the

bottle of beer before emptying the bottle of beer before emptying the remaining ginger beer into a glass. remaining ginger beer into a glass.

• As she did this, a partly decomposed snail As she did this, a partly decomposed snail floated out of the bottle. floated out of the bottle.

• Mrs Donoghue became ill. Mrs Donoghue became ill. • She suffered gastroenteritis and shock.She suffered gastroenteritis and shock.• She claimed that her illness was a direct She claimed that her illness was a direct

result of consuming the ginger beer and result of consuming the ginger beer and seeing the decomposed snail.seeing the decomposed snail.

The plaintiff’s caseThe plaintiff’s case• Mrs Donoghue could not bring and action Mrs Donoghue could not bring and action

under the law of contract because she under the law of contract because she was not a party to the contract.was not a party to the contract.

• The contract for the sale of the ginger beer The contract for the sale of the ginger beer was between the manufacturer and Mrs was between the manufacturer and Mrs Donoghue’s friend.Donoghue’s friend.

The defendant’s caseThe defendant’s case• The defence counsel argued that there The defence counsel argued that there

was no duty of care because there was no was no duty of care because there was no contract between the manufacturer and contract between the manufacturer and Mrs Donoghue.Mrs Donoghue.

The decisionThe decision• The House of Lords (3:2) decided in The House of Lords (3:2) decided in

favour of Mrs Donoghue.favour of Mrs Donoghue.• This was the first time that the House of This was the first time that the House of

Lords decided that the manufacturer owed Lords decided that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.

The ratio decidendi …The ratio decidendi …

““where a where a manufacturermanufacturer sells a product which sells a product which will reach the will reach the ultimate consumerultimate consumer without without

possibility of interference, and where possibility of interference, and where inspection is not possible, the manufacturer inspection is not possible, the manufacturer

owes aowes a duty of care duty of care to to

avoidavoid acts or omissions acts or omissions which one can which one can reasonably foreseereasonably foresee would be likely to injure would be likely to injure

your your neighbourneighbour””

Applying precedentApplying precedent The legal principles have been applied and The legal principles have been applied and extended to many other cases.extended to many other cases.

A later Australian case heard in the Privy A later Australian case heard in the Privy Council (which then was where you Council (which then was where you appealed to from the High Court), appealed to from the High Court), Grant vs. Grant vs. Australian Knitting Mills 1936Australian Knitting Mills 1936,, involved involved similar circumstances.similar circumstances.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

• Grant purchased woollen underwear Grant purchased woollen underwear manufactured by AKM Ltd. and suffered manufactured by AKM Ltd. and suffered dermatitis as a result of wearing it.dermatitis as a result of wearing it.

• It was later discovered that the condition It was later discovered that the condition was caused by the excessive use of was caused by the excessive use of chemicals.chemicals.

The precedent established in Donoghue’s The precedent established in Donoghue’s case has since been case has since been developeddeveloped and and extendedextended to cover a range of other to cover a range of other

relationships, and reflected in statutes.relationships, and reflected in statutes.

Who is your neighbour at law?Who is your neighbour at law?