Tort Law

A ginger-beer was purchased for Mrs. Donoghue by her friend from Wellmeadow Café in Paisley on August 26 1928. Consuming around half the bottle (which was made out of a dark opaque glass), when the remaining half of the drink was poured into a tumbler. At this time, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out, causing her shock and severe gastro-enteritis. Despite of this, Mrs. Donoghue was unable to claim any breach of warranty of a contract (not being party to any). Therefore, she issued claims against Stevenson (the manufacturer of the ginger-beer); this case climbed its way up to the House of Lords. 
Looking at the facts of this situation, the main question that had arisen for the House of Lords, was if the manufacturer owed Mrs. Donoghue a duty of care, despite the absence of contractual relations, contrary to established case law. During this time, being the late 1920s, the law around negligence was minute, and was only established in court if there was a breach of a contractual relationship. 
The decision made by the House of Lords was comprised of several components, including: negligence being distinct and separate in tort; there is no need for there to be a contractual relationship for a duty to assigned or established. Finally, manufactures owe a duty to their consumers. However, the ruling was also influenced by Lord Atkin’s principle to apply the concept of ‘loving thy neighbor.’ Atkin stated that the rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes law, as you must not injure your neighbor. In this, Mrs. Donoghue had proved her allegation; that she has a cause of action in law.