1. WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR
Once upon a time in the year 1928 at Paisley, Scotland, one Miss May Donoghue went shopping with a friend. While at a particular shop, her friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer.

2. Since the bottle of the drink was not made of clear glass, Miss Donoghue hadconsumed most of its contents before she became aware that it contained a decomposing snail. She later fell ill and a physician diagnosed her with gastroenteritis.

3. Miss Donoghue subsequently took legal action against Mr David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking £500 damages.

4. Miss Donoghue could not sue Stevenson for breach of contract because she had not purchased the drink herself (Privity of contract).
Instead, Miss Donoghue’s lawyers claimed that Stevenson had breached a duty of care to his consumers and caused injury through negligence.

5. At the time, this area of civil law was largely untested. Stevenson’s lawyers challenged d action on the basis that no precedents existed for such a claim.

6. They referred to an earlier action by Miss Donoghue’s lawyer, Mullen v. AG Barr, where a dead mouse was found in a bottle of soft drink but that particular case was dismissed due to a lack of precedent.

7. Donoghue’s initial action failed but she appealed up to the House of Lords. The leading judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932, established that Stevenson was responsible for the well-being of individuals who consumed his products, given that they could not be inspected.

8. It was in the case that Lord Atkin of blessed memory in his leading judgment, laid down the famous and still very relevant "NEIGHBOURHOOD PRINCIPLE" by asking the question; "Who is my neighbour"?

9. In answering this question, Lord Atkin submitted as follows: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour?.

10.The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in mind when I am considering these acts or omissions.

11. Before this case, Miss Donoghue would only have been able to sue for negligence if she had bought the drink her self thus establishing a contractual relationship between herself and Stevenson and not a tortuous liability of negligence that now doesnt require same.

12. In this Covid19 times, let us know that everyone is our neighbour amd It is therefore our responsibility to ensure we observe all the preventive measures as prescribed so none of us gets sued for negligence after all this is over.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100.