Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Last updated

Australian Knitting Mills Limited v Grant
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameAustralian Knitting Mills Ltd and John Martin & Co v Grant
Decided18 August 1933
Citation(s) [1933] HCA 35, (1933) 50 CLR 387
Case history
Prior action(s)Grant v John Martin & Co and Australian Knitting Mills Limited [1933] SAStRp 3, [1935] SASR 457
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Privy Council
Decided21 October 1935
Citation(s) [1935] UKPC 62, [1936]  AC  85; [1935] UKPCHCA 1, (1935) 54  CLR  49
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Viscount Hailsham LC, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright Sir Lancelot Sanderson

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1] is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, [2] and used as an example for students studying law. [3]

Contents

Background

In the 19th century, an action for negligence was only available if there was a particular relationship between the injured person and the person said to be negligent. The most common founding of the relationship was that of contract, but only where both people were party to the same contract, referred to as privity of contract. [4] Thus in Winterbottom v Wright , Winterbottom had a contract with the Postmaster-General to drive a mail coach, while Wright had a contract with the Postmaster-General to maintain the mail coach. Wright performed his contract negligently and a wheel fell off the coach and Winterbottom was injured. The Court of Exchequer held that because Winterbottom and Wright were not parties to the same contract, such that Wright had no liability in negligence. [5] There was no privity of contract where goods were sold by an intermediary, or where the goods were bought on behalf of another. There were some exceptions, such as Langridge v Levy where the seller fraudulently misrepresented that the gun was safe, knowing that the gun was bought on behalf of the buyers son, [6] and George v Skivington where a chemist negligently compounded a bottle of hair shampoo, knowing it was to be used by the plaintiff's wife. [7] In 1932 the law of negligence however was radically altered by the House of Lords in the decision of Donoghue v Stevenson , [8] where Lord Atkin held that the particular relationships that had hitherto been held to give rise to a duty of care were but instances of a general rule that a person owed a duty of care who ought reasonably have been contemplated as being closely and directly affected by the actions.

Facts

In June 1931 Dr Grant purchased two pairs of woollen underwear and two singlets from John Martin & Co. There was nothing to say the underwear should be washed before wearing and Dr Grant did not do so. He suffered a skin irritation within nine hours of first wearing them. Dr Grant applied calamine lotion, but continued to wear the underwear for the rest of the week. He then wore the second pair for the next week and washed the first pair. This was in an era when changing his underwear only once a week was "the ordinary custom of ordinary people". [9] : at p. 470  The skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis. Dr Grant blamed the underwear and sued John Martin & Co. for breach of contract, being the statutory warranties that the goods were fit for the purpose and were of merchantable quality. [10] Dr Grant also sued the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, [11] alleging that they had been negligent in failing to take reasonable care in the preparation of the garments. The garments in question were alleged to contain an excess of sulphur compounds, variously described as sulphur dioxide and sulphites.

Supreme Court of South Australia

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia before Murray CJ over 20 days in November and December 1932 . [9] The issues to be determined in the case were whether the underwear caused Dr Grant's dermatitis, whether Dr Grant relied on the salesman's skill & judgment, giving rise to the statutory warranty the underwear was fit for purpose, [12] and the extent of the manufacturer's duty of care to the ultimate consumer. Murray CJ accepted evidence that the dermatitis was caused by exposure to sulphur compounds, [9] : at p. 463  and that the sulphur compounds were on the underwear from the scouring, bleaching and shrinking processes. [9] : at p. 467–8  Murray CJ held that the retailer was liable under the statutory warranty because Grant had asked for woollen underwear and relied on the salesman's skill in selecting the "golden fleece" brand manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. The Sale of Goods Act, [12] was founded on the existence of a contract and did not apply to the claim against the manufacturer. Murray CJ applied the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson, [8] which had been decided by the House of Lords less than 12 months previously, [13] holding that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer because (1) it intended the underwear would reach the consumer for wear in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer, (2) there was no reasonable possibility of testing for the presence of sulphur compounds and (3) Australian Knitting Mills knew that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation of the garments would result in an injury to the purchaser's health. The judgment does not articulate what a reasonable manufacturer would have done differently. Dr Grant was awarded £2,450 in damages. [9] : at p. 473 

High Court

Australian Knitting Mills and John Martin & Co appealed to the High Court, where the case was heard over a further 6 days. The majority, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ, upheld the appeal. [14]

Starke J agreed with the findings of Murray CJ that (1) the manufacturing process was the source of some of the sulphur content, but it was not possible to determine the proportion, [14] : at p. 406  and (2) the dermatitis was caused by sulphur compounds in the garments. [14] : at p. 407  Starke J however upheld the appeal, finding that Australian Knitting Mills was not negligent as it adopted a process that was prudent and reasonable. [14] : at p. 409  Starke J held that it was unreasonable to expect John Martin & Co to exercise skill and judgement that the goods were free from irritant chemicals when they had no means of detecting the sulphur compounds. [14] : at p. 411 

Dixon J noted that, on one view the test from Donoghue v Stevenson was limited to circumstances where the manufacturer had excluded interference with or examination of the goods, whilst the other view was that it was sufficient if the manufacturer intended the consumer to receive the article as it left the manufacturer. Dixon J did not determine which view was correct, instead holding that the evidence did not establish that the underwear had the sulphur compounds of such a strength so as to have caused Dr Grant's dermatitis. [14] : at p. 428  McTiernan J, as he tended to do, [15] agreed with Dixon J, in this case writing a short concurring judgement. [14] : at p. 450 

Evatt J dissented, holding that Dr Grant's dermatitis was caused by sulphur compounds and that the manufacturer had failed to fully or completely carry out its washing process. [14] : at p. 436  Evatt J dismissed the contention that there was no "special relationship" between the manufacturer and consumer, noting that the manufacturer provided a "guarantee" to the purchaser that the garments would not shrink if washed in accordance with its directions. [14] : at p. 440 

One of the issues was whether specific identified goods were goods "bought by description" within the meaning of the Sales of Goods Act. [10] Dixon J, [14] : at pp. 417–8  McTiernan J agreeing, and Evatt J, [14] : at p. 448  held that because they were described by Dr Grant as woollen underclothing, the goods were bought by description, even though he was shown specific items.

Arguments

The hearing before the Privy Council lasted 9 days, bringing the total hearing days to 35. Grant was represented by G.P Glanfield, and argued that the manufacturer's duty was to render the garment safe, in terms reflecting a strict liability rather than a duty to take reasonable care. Australian Knitting Mills and John Martin & Co were represented by Wilfred Greene KC , [16] and the Australian barrister Wilbur Ham KC , [17] who had represented them before the High Court and had made the journey to London for the hearing. [18] The headnote writer in the authorised reports of Donoghue v Stevenson expressed the duty of care as being confined to ‘the manufacturer of an article of food, medicine or the like’, [19] an argument that was adopted for Australian Knitting Mills in seeking to distinguish the case from one in which an item of clothing was to be worn externally. The other way in which they sought to distinguish Donoghue v Stevenson the sealed bottle intentionally excluded interference with or examination of the ginger beer before it reached the consumer, whereas the clothing bought by Dr Grant "might be handled and inspected by others before reaching the" consumer. [1] :  AC at p. 89 

Privy Council

At the time there was no provision for dissent or separate judgments in the Privy Council. Instead the advice to the King was determined by a majority of judges who heard the appeal and one judge would be chosen to write the judgment. Decisions of the Privy Council tended to be expressed on narrow grounds, a tendency attributed to the need to reflect the agreement of the majority of judges. [20] Lord Wright delivered the judgment of the Privy Council and identified the aspects of the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson in which the majority, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan and Lord Atkin had agreed, [1] : CLR at p. 63  as being the statement by Lord Atkin that:

A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. [8] : at p. 599 

The Privy Council rejected the attempts to distinguish Donoghue v Stevenson, stating "No distinction however, can be logically drawn for this purpose between a noxious thing taken internally and a noxious thing applied externally", [1] : CLR at p. 66  and that "The decision in Donoghue's Case did not depend on the bottle being stoppered and sealed: the essential point in this regard was that the article should reach the consumer or user subject to the same defect as it had when it left the manufacturer." [1] : CLR at p. 67 

The judgment took a narrow approach to its expression of the duty of care, [21] limiting it to (1) manufacturers of goods, [1] : CLR at p. 66  (2) the presence of deleterious chemicals could not be detected by any examination that could reasonably be made by the consumer, [1] : CLR at p. 66  and (3) the risk is known to the manufacturer and unknown to the consumer. [1] : CLR at p. 65 

An appellant who seeks to disturb a decision as to the facts must show the decision was wrong, having regard to the advantage of the trial judge of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In this case the Privy Council was not satisfied that the trial Judge was wrong. [1] : CLR at p. 58  In relation to the manufacturers breach of the duty, the Privy Council held that "According to the evidence, the method of manufacture was correct: The danger of excess sulphites being left was recognized and guarded against: the process was intended to be fool proof. If excess sulphites were left in the garment, that could only be because someone was at fault". [1] : CLR at p. 61–2 

Dr Grant was held to have relied upon the skill and judgment of the retailer that the garments were fit for wearing, with the Privy Council saying:

It is clear that the reliance must be brought home to the mind of the seller, expressly or by implication. The reliance will seldom be express: it will usually arise by implication from the circumstances: thus to take a case like that in question, of a purchase from a retailer, the reliance will be in general inferred from the fact that a buyer goes to the shop in the confidence that the tradesman has selected his stock with skill and judgment: the retailer need know nothing about the process of manufacture: it is immaterial whether he be manufacturer or not: the main inducement to deal with a good retail shop is the expectation that the tradesman will have bought the right goods of a good make: the goods sold must be, as they were in the present case, goods of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply: there is no need to specify in terms the particular purpose for which the buyer requires the goods, which is none the less the particular purpose within the meaning of the section, because it is the only purpose for which any one would ordinarily want the goods. In this case the garments were naturally intended, and only intended, to be worn next the skin. [1] : CLR at p. 60 

Thus the Privy Council upheld the appeal, finding that the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia was correct in finding that both the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, and the retailer, John Martin & Co, were liable to the plaintiff. [1] [22]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

<i>Donoghue v Stevenson</i> 1932 UK leading case on negligence

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privity of contract</span> Legal Principle

The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon anyone who is not a party to that contract. It is related to, but distinct from, the doctrine of consideration, according to which a promise is legally enforceable only if valid consideration has been provided for it, and a plaintiff is legally entitled to enforce such a promise only if they are a promisee from whom the consideration has moved.

<i>Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd</i>

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty of care</span> Legal standard of care in activity

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

<i>Caparo Industries plc v Dickman</i>

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:

<i>Winterbottom v Wright</i>

Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109 was an important case in English common law responsible for constraining the law's 19th-century stance on negligence.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, in order to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability will be imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.

<i>Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying customs or excise duties. Although some of the judges used the now-discredited criterion of liability approach, this case remains authority for cases that are factually similar to it.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.

<i>Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd</i>

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual term</span> Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<i>Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the ignis suus principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence.

<i>Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co</i>

Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 is an English tort law case on negligent misstatement.

<i>Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd</i>

Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage and economic losses.

George v Skivington (1869) is an English tort law case where it was held that a manufacturer who places a product intended for human consumption into the market, in a form that is liable for damage and who fails to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the product is suitable for human consumption, could be sued for damages by the victims.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and excise duties. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

<i>Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, is a leading Australian case regarding what is an offer that, when accepted, gives rise to a legally binding contract.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 62 , [1936] AC 85; [1935] UKPCHCA 1 , (1935) 54 CLR 49(21 October 1935), Privy Council (on appeal fromAustralia).
  2. ↑ "Law Cite Search [1936]AC 85". and "Lawcite search (1935) 54 CLR 49".
  3. ↑ "Dr Grant and his underpants" (PDF). Victorian Law Foundation. 2011.
  4. ↑ Plunkett, J.C. (2015). "The Historical Foundations of the Duty of Care". Monash University Law Review. (2015) 41 Monash University Law Review 716.
  5. ↑ Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109; (1842) 152 ER 402.
  6. ↑ Langridge v Levy (1837) 2 M&W 519; (1837) 150 ER 863.
  7. ↑ George v Skivington (1869) 5 LR Ex 1, 39 LJ Ex 8
  8. 1 2 3 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 , [1932] AC 562(26 May 1932), House of Lords (UK).
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Grant v John Martin & Co and Australian Knitting Mills Limited [1933] SAStRp 3 , [1935] SASR 457(17 February 1933), Supreme Court (SA,Australia).
  10. 1 2 Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA) s 14.
  11. ↑ Australian Knitting Mills was taken over by Holeproof in 1955: "Our History". Holeproof. 2003. Archived from the original on 18 February 2011.
  12. 1 2 Sale of Goods Act 1895 (SA) s14.
  13. ↑ cited as McAlister v Stevenson in accordance with Scots law practice which was to include both the married and maiden names of female litigants: Heuston, R. F. V., Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect (1957) 20 Modern Law Review 1. doi : 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00421.x
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35 , (1933) 50 CLR 387 , High Court (Australia).
  15. ↑ Seroussi, Y; Smyth, R & Zukerman, I. "Ghosts from the High Court's past: Evidence from computational linguistics for Dixon ghosting for McTiernan and Rich" (PDF). (2011) 34 University of New South Wales Law Journal 984.
  16. ↑ Greene was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal later that year.
  17. ↑ Balmford, P. "Ham, Wilbur Lincoln (1883–1948)". Australian Dictionary of Biography . National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISSN   1833-7538 . Retrieved 13 June 2017.
  18. ↑ A trip that at that time typically took 42 days each way. "Passenger Ships to Australia: A Comparison of Vessels and Journey Times". Australian Maritime Museum. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
  19. ↑ Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
  20. ↑ Gleeson, M (2008). "The Privy Council – An Australian Perspective" (PDF).
  21. ↑ Edelman, J (2014). "Fundamental errors in Donoghue v Stevenson" (PDF).
  22. ↑ "Liability for Defective Products Bill, 1991: Second Stage". Seanad Éireann Vol. 130. 14 November 1991. Archived from the original on 10 September 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.