The Immortal Snail Itself - Why Does Donoghue v Stevenson Still Resonate? - A View From the Caribbean

Aug 26, 2026

Upload by Connor

Remarks by the Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, delivered via Zoom on 26 May 2022 for the Donoghue v Stevenson 90th Anniversary Conference. The speech revisits the tort of negligence and the “neighbour principle,” then connects the case’s enduring logic to Caribbean practice through research on recent judicial citations. It illustrates application and damages questions using the Belizean case Barnett v Belize Brewing Co Ltd, highlighting evidentiary approach and res ipsa loquitur reasoning.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Remarks on the enduring resonance of Donoghue v Stevenson

The negligence tort and the “neighbour principle”

Caribbean reception and research findings

Belizean example: Barnett v Belize Brewing Co Ltd

The Immortal Snail Itself: Why Does Donoghue v Stevenson Still Resonate? -A View From the Caribbean The Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice Donoghue v Stevenson 90th Anniversary Conference: ‘The Immortal Snail” Virtual 26 May 2022 The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 12,000 Scottish solicitors and was established in 1949. We have an overarching objective of leading legal excellence, and strive to excel and to be a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of our members and the public. As part of our regulatory duties, we set and uphold standards to ensure the provision of excellent legal services and ensure the public can have confidence in Scotland’s legal profession Remarks by The Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders*1, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice on the occasion of the Donoghue v Stevenson 90th Anniversary Conference: ‘The Immortal Snail’ on The Immortal Snail Itself: Why does Donoghue v Stevenson still resonate?– A view from the Caribbean Delivered via Zoom on 26 May 2022 The tort of negligence is a fundamental feature of the common law; that legal system that invites judges, incrementally, to shape and to expand the law, in partnership with the legislature. And since 1932, I reckon that every student of tort law throughout the Commonwealth, in their first semester, has come across, and been fascinated by the dispute involving the snail in the bottle. The striking nature of the gruesome facts, tersely recounted in the judgments; the magisterial analyses of the prevailing law and the simplicity of Lord Atkin’s inspired deployment of the biblical injunction to ‘love thy neighbour’, so indelibly imprint themselves on one’s senses that it takes some time before it is appreciated that the celebrated judgment does not itself reveal the answers to such questions as whether poor Mrs Donoghue (who is actually described in the heading of the case as a pauper) ultimately succeeded in her action. If she did, how much compensation did she receive? And were the damages obtained close to what she thought was satisfactory? Those were naturally critical questions, at least for the goodly lady; but, as students of the law, we were more enthralled by the ambitious, and for the most part successful, attempt at systematising and clarifying the law of negligence and the prospects the ‘neighbour principle’opened up for expanding the liabilities of those who caused harm by their carelessness. Yes, the 90th Anniversary of Donoghue v Stevenson2 is an occasion worthy of celebration and I wish to thank the Law Society of Scotland for affording me the opportunity, no, the privilege to *The huge assistance of Denys Barrow, Chumah Amaefule and Jacinth Smith are gratefully appreciated. 2 [1932] AC 562. Page 1 of 8 participate in today’s commemoration. It has been a profitable experience. In a friendly chat held a few weeks ago among fellow presenters and our Scottish organisers, I learned for the first time the answers to all the aforementioned questions, and more, which their Lordships’judgment did not and could not reveal. In preparation for today’s event, I asked my court’s Chief Librarian to run a search of Donoghue v Stevenson on a database that features Caribbean cases. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that over the last 10 years, the case was directly applied, or followed, or at least specifically cited, on dozens of occasions by judges of all stripes throughout the Caribbean region. And, in a Belizean case3, a Mr Anthony Barnett suffered an experience that was eerily similar to that which confronted Mrs Donoghue. Mr Barnett had purchased a bottle of Belikin stout at a restaurant. The bartender opened the bottle in his presence and handed it over. What occurred next is graphically captured in the law report4 – the appellant, [T]ook one sip, then another, and tasted some ‘slimy stuff’ in

FAQs

What legal foundation does the speech emphasize in Donoghue v Stevenson?

It presents negligence as a core feature of common law and highlights the systematising impact of Lord Atkin’s “love thy neighbour” deployment and the “neighbour principle” on expanding liability for careless harm.

How does the speech support the claim that the case still resonates in the Caribbean?

It reports a database search of Caribbean cases showing that over the prior ten years Donoghue v Stevenson was applied, followed, or specifically cited by judges across the region.

How was Donoghue applied in the Belizean example involving Mr Barnett?

The court applied Donoghue and res ipsa loquitur to hold the brewery had not provided facts to rebut the presumption of negligence, while also addressing damages by reference to differing sensitivity assumptions.

Aug 26, 2026

Upload by Connor