Donoghue v. Stevenson and Cooper v. Hobart: Who Owes a Duty of Care

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Mrs. Donoghue drank ginger beer bought for her by a friend at a café in Scotland. The bottle was opaque. When the rest was poured, the remains of a decomposed snail fell out, and she became ill. She had no contract with the manufacturer, but the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumers of its products. Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' became the foundation of modern negligence law.

Cooper v. Hobart (2001)

Investors who lost money with a mortgage broker sued the provincial registrar responsible for regulating brokers, saying it should have acted sooner. The Supreme Court held the registrar owed no duty of care to individual investors: its duty was to the public as a whole, and imposing a duty to individuals raised policy concerns. In doing so, the Court refined the Canadian test.

The test

1. Was the harm a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct?
2. Was there sufficient proximity: a close and direct relationship that makes it fair to impose a duty?
3. If yes, are there residual policy reasons to deny or limit the duty?

Common recognized duties

• Drivers to other drivers, passengers and pedestrians.
• Occupiers to people on their property, under the Occupiers' Liability Act.
• Professionals and tradespeople to their clients.
• Manufacturers to consumers.

Photos from Pexels: A law book beside the scales of justice on a wooden desk · A wooden gavel on a judge's desk.

This article is general information for people in Ontario, not legal advice. Rules, forms and deadlines change, and every situation is different. Check the current rule or speak to a licensed legal professional before you act.