Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]
[1932] AC 562 · House of Lords · United Kingdom
Issue
Did a manufacturer owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer without privity?
Held
Yes. A manufacturer can owe a duty to foreseeable consumers.
Exam use
Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.
Summary
Foundational modern negligence duty case.
Facts
Issue
Did a manufacturer owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer without privity?
Held
Yes. A manufacturer can owe a duty to foreseeable consumers.
Ratio Decidendi
A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts likely to injure closely and directly affected neighbors.
Reasoning
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Donoghue v. Stevenson ([1932] AC 562) strengthens a tort law answer because the case reflects the principle that A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts likely to injure closely and directly affected neighbors. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Did a manufacturer owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer without privity? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.