A Trip To The Big House

May Donoghue and Walter Leechman were overjoyed and grateful for the decision to allow their case to be heard in the House of Lords . They felt that they had been given a second chance and a new hope for creating legal history.

May and Walter did not know it then, but their case would still face many twists and turns before the final result was to be declared. There would be drama, strong emotions, brilliant arguments, witty exchanges, sharp disagreements, surprising revelations, and unexpected outcomes.

And by now, the infamy of the Paisley Snail case meant that the hearing in the House of Lords would be a historic event. It was to attract widespread attention and interest from the legal profession, the media, and the public, and it would be attended by many eminent lawyers, judges, academics, journalists, and spectators.

It would last for two days: 12 and 13 December 1931.

On the first day, William Milligan presented his case for May Donoghue. He spoke for three hours. He gave a clear and comprehensive overview of the facts, the issues, and the law. He gave a powerful and persuasive argument for his client’s claim, citing the need for consumer rights to be at the forefront of the case.

He argued that David Stevenson owed a duty of care to May Donoghue as a consumer of his ginger beer; that he breached his duty by allowing a snail to contaminate his product; that his breach caused May’s illness and shock; and that May suffered damage as a result.

Milligan argued that this duty of care should be based on negligence rather than contract. He argued that negligence should be a flexible and adaptable concept that should respond to changing circumstances and needs AND that it should be based on foreseeability and proximity rather than physical contact or privity.

He asked the House of Lords to uphold May’s claim against Stevenson.

George Morton, defending David Stevenson, countered with a robust defense, questioning the existence of a duty of care and challenging the causal link between Stevenson's actions and Donoghue's alleged damages. His arguments aimed to preserve the traditional boundaries of negligence law, advocating for the dismissal of Donoghue's claim. 

The legal battle reached its zenith as Milligan was given the floor once more to respond to Morton's points. In his final address, Milligan appealed to the Law Lords' sense of justice and fairness, urging them to consider the evolving needs of society and the potential for the law to adapt in response to those needs. 

The five Lords retired to their chambers having heard each side's legal argument. It was now time for the verdict.