By Marcel Strigberger | June 25, 2025
As spooky as AI is, at least it comes up with information. However, AI is known to do what it wants to do, and the information can get a bit off base.
We are all familiar, for example, with Donoghue v. Stevenson. In this iconic 1932 case, the House of Lords broke the ice on the law of negligence by enabling a consumer to successfully sue the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer that contained a non-invited snail. AI will generally give you a decent summary of the case. But what might happen if we throw some random word, like “Seinfeld”, into our search? I imagine ChatGPT or the like might get a bit creative — perhaps come up with some “hallucinations”. It would not surprise me if the consequent report of the decision would look like this:
LORD KRAMER:
This is a case about nothing,
Representing the plaintiff is attorney Jackie Chiles. Representing the defendant is postal worker Hello Newman.
The plaintiff, Ms. Donoghue, was munching on a bag of pretzels while on a stroll. After consuming them, she said to herself, “These pretzels are making me thirsty”. She decided to quench her thirst by dropping into Monk’s Café, where she ordered a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. The bottle was opaque. After taking a guzzle or two, she asked for a glass. When she poured the contents into the glass, out slid a slimy snail. The plaintiff freaked out, and the café’s owner, one Mulva, was summoned. An argument ensued during which the plaintiff called the owner a “ginger beer Nazi”. The owner ejected her from the café, shouting out loud, “No ginger beer for you”.
The plaintiff claims she suffered mental distress and nervous shock as a result of the incident. She notes that this action is not about the money. All she wants is “serenity now”.
Ms. Donoghue alleges the snail was about 10 centimetres in length. The defendant takes issue with this description of the periwinkle. It called an expert witness, Professor George Costanza, who testified that when a snail sits in ginger beer for a while, its size usually diminishes to about two centimetres, and that this change is due to shrinkage. The court accepts the evidence of Professor Costanza. His testimony is certainly sponge-worthy.
The question is, did the manufacturer owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?
The plaintiff’s lawyer filed an extensive brief of cases in support of his argument. His position, in short, is that the defendant is negligent based on the neighbour principle, which is basically all about a possible duty owed to a non-contracting party, or as Lord Buckminster said in the landmark case of Sheffield Corporation v. Pickles, yada, yada, yada. The court does not accept the plaintiff’s argument. Accordingly, she will be getting zero, nada, bupkis. The action is dismissed.
CAVEAT: As we read almost daily about lawyers getting into trouble with the courts for relying on hallucinatory case law, I just know that, in citing Donoghue v. Stevenson, some colleagues may come across this version of the case and quote it. You are free to do so. Good luck — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
RELATED ARTICLES
Does “AI” stand for “Abandoned Intelligence”?
Lawyers can be jailed for misusing AI