The Verdict

May Donoghue and Walter Leechman waited anxiously for the judgment of the House of Lords. They hoped that the Law Lords would agree with them and overturn the decision of the Inner House. They hoped that there was legal history in the making and that they would finally get justice and compensation. 

David Stevenson and George Morton waited confidently for the judgment of the House of Lords. They expected that the Law Lords would agree with them and uphold the decision of the Inner House. They expected that they would finally get rid of the claim and the costs.

The legal judgment of the House of Lords was delivered on 26 May 1932. It was a split decision. Three Law Lords (Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, and Lord Macmillan) ruled in for May Donoghue. Two Law Lords (Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin) ruled for David Stevenson. The majority judgment was written by Lord Atkin.

This landmark judgment not only resolved the legal struggle between Donoghue and Stevenson but also introduced a fundamental principle in tort law: negligence based on foreseeability and proximity. Lord Atkin's eloquent analysis and reasoning laid the groundwork for what would become the cornerstone of negligence law in common law jurisdictions around the world.

Atkin's majority judgment articulated the now-famous "neighbour principle," which stated that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm their neighbors. This principle, which Atkin illustrated through the Parable of the Good Samaritan, established a moral and legal framework for determining duty of care, significantly expanding the scope of who is considered a "neighbour" in legal terms.

By applying this test to the facts of the Paisley Snail case, Lord Atkin concluded that Stevenson had a duty to ensure his ginger beer was free from contamination, a duty he breached, leading to Donoghue's illness. 

The judgment not only awarded Donoghue justice and the right to damages but also formally established the duty of care precedent for the protection of consumers against harm from defective products. 

It was also a controversial decision. There was criticism and praise from the legal profession, the media, and the public and the verdict sparked debate and discussion on the role and function of the law. 

The decision was also a final one - there would be no further rematch. Consumer protection had been the victor. It marked the end of a long and hard-fought legal battle and closed a chapter in a remarkable and memorable story.

But it was not the end of the story.