Every law student has almost mandatorily heard about the famous case of “Donoghue v.
Stevenson (1932)” or the ‘‘the snail in the bottle’’ case. It was not only a landmark judgment in
the evolution of common law but also extremely relevant to the development of tort law, a
branch of law that, till today, houses frequent uncertainties. This case establishes the doctrine of
negligence, duty of care and neighbor principle. It is important for us to understand the
importance of this as this is a breakthrough case and a landmark for the students of the law.
As students of law we struggle to understand the sufferance of an individual who goes through
any problem or any act occurred due to negligence of other individual, it is important for us to
understand this suffering as this will bring us somewhat closer to the victim and what they are
going through due to it.
The doctrine of negligence may seem to us as a separate part from law but it is as connected to
law as other doctrines are, usually in Pakistan there is not much importance given to negligence
as this does not bring in rewards from the court of law within a short period of time. Hence, the
person(s) victim to it does not bother much to pursue it which leads to undelivered justice.
During the 19th Century, manufactures had no liability for the goods they made. The liability
of manufactures for the losses suffered by the consumers took several decades to be established.
Negligence is a modern tort which has been created by courts very recently although the efforts
of giving it shape started as early as the 1850’s during the Industrial Revolution in England. This
is the time when inflicted on injuries to workers in factories, industries, railways and other places
where machines and industrial products were in use. Negligence focuses on the conduct of the
defendant which is labeled negligent unlike other torts which mainly focus on the interests of the
plaintiff, which are protected by the law.
Negligence, as a ground of legal responsibility, signifies a case of failure to do at all, or failure to
do in a proper manner some act which it was the duty of the alleged offending to perform, by
which failure the right of the party to whom the duty related was injured. In its popular, and in its
ordinary legal acceptation, the term negligence is applied only to cases of simple omission, in
which no willful purpose to do wrong is supposed. The experience of every lawyer will verify
the observation that among all the questions brought before our courts, none are of more
common occurrence and none more appropriate to be confusing, than those which turn on the
negligence of one or the other party or negligence of both parties. Upon no subject has the genius
of our modern jurisprudence developed more complex and nice distinctions and I think, it may
be safely added no distinctions in the whole range of our jurisprudence are more disconnected
and confused.
Negligence must always be a question of fact, and almost always for the determination of a jury.
Besides the accidental similarities and equivalences to be met with in reported cases, the lawyer's
collection can furnish him but little aid in the trial of such questions. It may at once be
pronounced impracticable to invent specific tests of negligence; or in other words to arrange
formulas for the various degrees of care incumbent on men in various situations. The thing to be
done is to give to those, whose office it is to conduct such investigations. Simply negligence can
be summarized and can be defined as, “Culpable Carelessness”.
Negligence, according to the above definition, is always a case of failure to fulfill a duty. The
duties, legal as well as moral, which man owes to his fellow man, grow out of his nature and
relations in life. A duty, when predicated of any person in any case, signifies that he is legally
bound in respect to the rights of some other person touching the particular subject matter, to do
or not to do some certain thing, affecting the enjoyment of those rights.
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson has an imperative role in determination of when a duty to
care exists in negligence. The existence of duty to care, which is owed to, by the defendants to
the plaintiff is the very essential and foremost ingredient without which no cause of action arises.
It can be said that this case has played a crucial role in evolution of tort of negligence. The ruling
established civil law tort of negligence and compel businesses to observe a duty of care towards
others who ought to have been affected by the conduct of the business (neighbors).