Benutzer:FredericII /Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Der Fall Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson ([1932] A.C. 562, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, [1932] All ER Rep 1) ist einer der bekanntesten Fälle in der Rechtsgeschichte desVereinigten Königreichs. Die Entscheidung des House of Lords gruendete das moderne Deliktrecht zur Fahrlässigkeit sowohl in der Jurisdiktion Schottlands) als auch in der übrigen Welt des Common Laws. Der Vorfall fand in Paisley, Schottland, statt, aber das House of Lords verfügte, dass die Prinzipien dieses Urteils auch im Englischen Recht angewendet werden sollen. Der Fall wird häufig auch „Paisley Schnecke“ oder „Schnecke in der Flasche“ bezeichnet.
Hintergrund
May Donoghue, geboren M’Alister nahm am Sonntagabend des 26. August 1928 eine Tram von Glasgow nach Paisley. Um ca. 20.50 Uhr setzten sie und ein Freund sich in das Wellmeadow Café, das sich auf dem Wellmeadow Place befindet. Der Café-Besitzer, Francis Minchella, kam, um zu bedienen, und Donoghues Freund bestellte und bezahlte eine Birne mit Eis sowie ein Milchshake. Der Besitzer brachte die Bestellung und goss einn Teil einer Flasche Ginger Ale The owner brought the order and poured part of a bottle of ginger beer into a tumbler containing ice cream. Donoghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. It was claimed that the remains of a snail in a state of decomposition plopped out of the bottle into the tumbler. Donoghue later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis. She also claimed to have suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident.
On 9th April 1929, Donoghue brought an action against David Stevenson, an aerated water manufacturer in Paisley, in which she claimed £500 as damages for injuries sustained by her through drinking ginger beer which had been manufactured by the defendant.
The case was ultimately settled out of court and the facts were never established in a court of law.
The identity of Donoghue's friend is also unknown but that person is referred to as "she" in the case reports (including the first paragraph of the judgment of Lord MacMillan in the House of Lords).
Other uncertainties are whether the animal (if it existed) was a snail or a slug; whether the bottle contained ginger beer or some other beverage and whether the drink was part of an ice-cream soda.
Legal analysis
Donoghue had not ordered or paid for the drink herself, so there was no contractual relationship between Donoghue and the café owner. The Scots law of delict at this time did not allow for Donoghue to sue the café owner. There was a contractual relationship between the café owner and the friend, but the friend had not drunk the ginger beer. Ginger beer was not a dangerous product, and the manufacturer had not fraudulently misrepresented it. At that time, those were the only two grounds for claiming negligence against a manufacturer. On the face of it, the law did not provide a remedy for Donoghue.
It is unclear how May Donoghue came into contact with solicitor Walter Leechman of W G Leechman & Co in Glasgow's West George Street, "the only solicitor in the world who would have taken her case."Vorlage:Fact Leechman was already an expert on the dangers of drinking ginger beer. He had already tried to establish liability against aerated water manufacturer A. G. Barr when a dead mouse was alleged to have found its way into a bottle of its ginger beer. However, an action for damages was rejected by the Inner House of the Court of Session, when the appeal court judges ruled that there was no legal authority allowing for such an action (Mullen v A.G. Barr & Co. 1929 S.C. 461).
Undeterred by this opinion, Leechman agreed to take on the case and lodged a writ in the Court of Session on April 1929 in the case of May Donoghue, née M’Alister v David Stevenson. The writ alleged that May Donoghue had become ill with nervous shock and gastroenteritis after drinking part of the contents of an opaque bottle of ginger beer and David Stevenson, the manufacturer, "owed her a duty to take reasonable care that ginger beer he manufactured, bottled, labelled and sealed, and invited her to buy, did not contain substances likely to cause her injury." Donoghue claimed damages of £500.
Counsel for the manufacturer denied liability nor that any such duty was owed. It was not until June 1930 that the judge ruled there was a case to answer. Stevenson's legal team appealed Lord Moncrieff's ruling on a number of legal grounds and the judges of the Inner House granted the appeal in November 1930, dismissing Donoghue's claim as having no legal basis on the authority of their earlier decision in Mullen v A.G. Barr. One of their lordships said that "the only difference between Donoghue's case and the mouse cases was the difference between a rodent and a gastropod and in Scots law that meant no difference at all."
See also
Notes
References
- Adler v. Dickson [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1482 at 1483 (Practice Note)
- Heuston, R.F.V. Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect (1957), 20 M.L.R. 1
- Linden, Allen M. "The American Influence on Canadian Tort Law," 50 UCLA L. Rev. 407, 414 (2002).
External links
- Mrs. Donoghue's Journey, Martin R. Taylor QC, Scottish Council of Law Reporting
- Original text of the case also from BAILII.org
- Digital copies of the original court documents filed by the solicitors and advocates
- Snail in a Bottle: Music video inspired by the decision, based on the Police's "message in a bottle".
- BBC News - Snail in a Ginsters Chicken and Mushroom slice
