Donoghue v Stevenson

1. The harm is clearly foreseeable since you can expect the existence of a decomposed snail in a bottle of beverage to cause physical harm to the consumer.

When faced with the question of reasonable foreseeability, you have to assume you are the reasonable person (no matter you are or are not in real life) and ask yourself whether you can foresee the harm. It is impossible to further define foreseeability. This is what judges do in real life.

2. There is clearly a close and direct relationship of proximity. The notion of proximity imports the requirement of a necessary relationship between P and D, and in the present case the relationship of manufacturer and consumer is one which is close and direct.

3. It is just and reasoable to impose a duty of care. Unsafe food and drinks can cause disasters. Just look at the milk powder scandal in China.

I would like to remind you that, in cases like Donoghue v Stevenson where the negligence of D directly caused P's injury, it is not necessary to inquire into proximity and reasonableness. A tick to the questions of proximity and reasonableness is implied.