Donoghue v Stevenson

Textual versions of document images

Donoghue v Stevenson – Appeal Papers – Appellant’s Case

Appellant's Case Page 15

View an image of the original document

15

appeals against the same to your Lordships' Right Honourable House, and in support of her Appeal she respectfully submits the following Statement and Reasons:—

Appellant's Case

INTERLOCUTORS
and
PROCEDURE

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT

    In this case the Appellant, who is a shop assistant, seeks to recover damages from the Respondent, who is a manufacturer of aerated waters, for injuries she suffered as a result of consuming part of the contents of a bottle of ginger-beer which had been manufactured by the Respondent, and which it transpired contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The said bottle of ginger-beer was purchased for the Appellant by a friend in the Wellmeadow Café, Paisley, which was occupied by Francis Minchella. The bottle was made of dark opaque glass, and the Appellant had no reason to suspect that it contained anything but pure ginger-beer. The said Francis Minchella poured some of the ginger-beer out into a tumbler, and the Appellant drank some of the contents of the tumbler. Her friend was then proceeding to pour the remainder of the contents of the bottle into the tumbler when a snail, which was in a state of decomposition, floated out of the bottle. As a result of the nauseating sight of the snail in such circumstances, and in consequence of the impurities in the ginger-beer which she had already consumed, the Appellant suffered from shock and severe gastroenteritis.

    The Appellant avers that the ginger-beer was manufactured by the Respondent to be sold as a drink to the public (including the Appellant). It was bottled by the Respondent and labelled by him with a label bearing his name; the bottles were thereafter sealed with a metal cap by the Respondent.

    It is, too, common knowledge that manufacturers such as the Respondent invite by advertisement and otherwise members of the public to purchase their products.

SUPPLEMENTARY
STATEMENT

Appellant's Case Page 15