A Mollusc from Paisley, Scotland achieved posthumous celebrity status when in 1928 it ended up in a bottle of ginger beer partly consumed by Ms. May Donoghue giving her a fright and ultimately gastroenteritis as her physician later diagnosed. Thus triggered the events that led to the founding of modern negligence and consumer protection law in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
It all started on 26 August 1928, when Donoghue and a friend met at the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, Scotland. At Donoghue’s request, her friend ordered her a ginger beer and paid for it. The cafe had bought the product from a distributor who in turn had bought it from Stevenson, the manufacturer.
The ginger beer came in a dark bottle and the content was therefore not visible from outside. Donoghue drank part of the content. As her friend poured the rest of the ginger beer into the tumbler, the remainder of a decomposing snail dropped out into the tumbler. Donoghue subsequently complained of stomach ache and her physician diagnosed her with gastroenteritis and as having suffered from severe shock. Donoghue then sued Stevenson for negligence.
She was unsuccessful at trial since in those days, a duty of care was only owed to persons in contractual relations or where a manufacturer was making something dangerous, or acted fraudulently. The trial Judge thus held that as there was no contract between Ms. Donoghue and the Manufacturer (May’s friend having paid for the drink) , the latter could not be held liable to her in negligence.
Undaunted, Ms. Donoghue (buoyed by Walter Leechman, her determined Solicitor) appealed to the House of lords where she eventually won the case.
On 26th May 1932, Lord Atkin, ostensibly referring to the Christian principle of ‘loving thy neighbour’ said:
“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law ‘You must not injure your neighbour’;
This means:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”
While on the question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’, he answered:
“Neighbours are persons who are reasonably foreseeable as being affected by your actions or omissions. A duty of care is not owed to the world at large; it is owed to your neighbors.”
Overall, the House of Lords held that as the purpose of a product is normally to be consumed, Manufacturers owe consumers a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that their products are safe for consumption (at least in cases where goods cannot be inspected between manufacturing and consumption). That therefore there need not be a contractual relationship before an end consumer can sue for negligence.
The pronouncement of Lord Atkin of Aberdovey established the modern law of negligence, covering all aspects of negligence claims from personal injury to professional negligence and significantly the development of product liability law.
I reported in an official letter a case of food poisoning linked to the case of bottled water (name withheld) consumed for five days ( I was still taking the water even after suffering symptoms because I initially never suspected that the water was the cause). After several months of correspondence, I was directed to their product liability insurer who requested for documents backing up my claim. The samples of the water were sent by the manufacturer for testing in an external laboratory. Meanwhile I was not satisfied as to the external laboratory investigation carried out by the water manufacturer as they projected the result on a projector for me. I was never provided with a copy of the laboratory report or contact details of the laboratory to verify their claim and genuineness of the outcome projected on the PowerPoint or PDF presentation.
This includes the medical report from the hospital in respect of my treatment. I purchased the water for drinking in the office so I was the only one who suffered this illness from consumption of the water. My son had unknowingly drank from a little quantity left in the bottle and also suffered some symptoms of vomiting and stooling for a day but this was quickly tackled so the symptoms was curtailed.
My medical report from the hospital reads: “The patient reported at our clinic on the …of March 2016 complaining of abdominal pains and stooling for 3 days. A diagnosis of gastroenteritis was made…. The patient was placed on dose of ……. The patient did not return to for further follow up or resolution”.
The insurance company is claiming that this report is not sufficient for the claim and that there was no clarity in this report linking the case to food poisoning as a result of consumption of the water. The hospital had responded that the report was very clear and they are not allowed to disclose details of patient’s medical report to third parties (apparently the insurance company had contacted them for more information which the hospital declined because they are a third party).
Do you think the insurance company has a valid assertion with regards to my claim?
Thanks for your comment and enquiry @Babajide.
Establishing nexus between a negligent act and an injury
is a prerequisite for a successful claim. In this case, the insurance
company may require further clarification or information from the
hospital to be satisfied that the injury you complained of indeed arose from the water consumed. The next step therefore is to authorise the Hospital in writing to release further information about you regarding your treatment to the insurance company to assist your claim. You can copy the Insurance company and write a further letter to the Insurance company asking them to renew their enquiry with the Hospital. Best wishes.