A bought a bottle of soft drink and poured one half of contents in a glass and drank it. When she poured the remaining contents a decomposed body of snail floated above. A became sick and claimed damages against the manufacturing company. Which of the following is true in this context?

Company owed no duty to A Company owed a duty to the general public including A Company was not liable as A has purchased the bottle from a retailer Company could not foresee that there would be a snail in the bottle.

Company owed a duty to the general public including A

The duty of care principle can be explained by citing an actual case law. In a 1932 English case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant Donoghue drank a soft drink manufactured by the defendant Stevenson. The drink had a decomposed snail in the bottle that made the claimant ill. The court held that the manufacturer owed duty of care to those who are 'reasonably foreseeable' to be affected by the product. So the duty of care is owed to those whom one can reasonably foresee as being potentially harmed. This principle is applicable to numerous fact situations; as another example, a landlord owes a duty of care with reasonable foresight to his tenants and should ensure that no hazardous substance like petrol is stored by him in the basement of the apartment being dwelt by the tenants. Once the duty of care is proven the claimant then must establish that the duty of care was broken; i.e., the defendant was unsuccessful in fulfilling the duty of care in accordance with the standard of 'reasonableness'. The standard is that of 'reasonable conduct' or 'reasonable foresight', however, the act need not be flawless. In the case of 'onoghue v Stevenson above, the court held that the manufacturers of products owe a duty of reasonable care to the consumers who use the products.