Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment that laid down the principles of negligence. 
• The judgment was delivered by 5 judges- Lord Macmillan, Lord Atkin, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Tomlin, Lord Thankerton. 
• The judgment was delivered by a 3:2 majority.  

Facts 

• On the evening of August 1928, the appellant and her friend visited a cafe in Paisley where her friend ordered an ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer. 
• The shopkeeper supplied the same, opened the bottle of ginger beer and poured the contents over the ice- cream which was contained in a tumbler. 
• The Appellant drank it and as her friend was pouring the remaining contents of the bottle in the tumbler, she found a decomposed snail floating out with the ginger beer. 
• The bottle was kept in an opaque glass and so the condition of the contents could not have been ascertained by inspection. 
• It was the case of the Appellant that she contracted illness as she had already consumed a part of the ginger beer. 
• Thus, a suit of negligence was brought against the manufacturers.

Issue Involved

• Whether the manufacturer of the ginger beer would be liable for tort of negligence? 

Observations 

• Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan and Lord Thankerton of the House of Lords delivered the majority making the manufacturer liable for negligence in this case. 
• Lord Atkin first of all laid down that under law, a party is under an obligation not to injure the neighbor. The question that the Court answered was who is the neighbor? 
  • Persons who are so closely and directly affected by the act of the party and are ought to have been affected by the reasonable contemplation of the party. 
  • Lord Esher stated in the case of Le Lievre v. Gould (1893) that “one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If one man is near to another, or is near to the property of another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other or may injure his property.” 
  • Thus, the duty of care arises when there is proximity, the proximity however need not be confined to physical proximity. 
  • The proximity extends to such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act. 
• Lord Macmillan held that a person who for gain engages in the business of manufacturing articles of food and drink intended for consumption by members of the public in the form in which he issues them is under a duty to take care in the manufacture of these articles. 
• The person owes a duty to those he intends to consume his products. 
• The Court held that the possibility of injury so arising seems to be in no sense so remote as to excuse him from foreseeing it.  
• Thus, the Court held by 3:2 majority that the appellant should be held liable.

Conclusion

• This case is also known as the “Snail in the Bottle” case. 
• The Court held that the manufacturer of the goods has a duty of care towards the consumer of the goods.