Donoghue v Stevenson

Textual versions of document images

Donoghue v Stevenson – Appeal Papers – Die Jovis 26 Maii 1932, Note and Reclaiming Note

Reclaiming Note Page 4

View an image of the original document

  4
No. 1 of Pro. 2. — CONDESCENDENCE for PURSUER,
  AND
No. 5 of Pro. ANSWERS thereto for DEFENDER.
 

    COND. I. The pursuer is employed as a shop assistant, and resides at 49 Kent Street, off London Road, Glasgow. The defender is an aerated-water manufacturer, and carries on business at Glen Lane, Paisley.

Ans. 1. The description of the defender is admitted. Quoad ultra not known and not admitted.

    COND. II. At or about 8.50 p.m. on or about 26th August 1928, the pursuer was in the shop occupied by Francis Minchella, and known as Wellmeadow Cafe, at Wellmeadow Place, Paisley, with a friend. The said friend ordered for the pursuer ice-cream, and ginger-beer suitable to be used with the ice-cream as an iced drink. Her friend, acting as aforesaid, was supplied by the said Mr Minchella with a bottle of ginger-beer manufactured by the defender for sale to members of the public. The said bottle was made of dark opaque glass, and the pursuer and her friend had no reason to suspect that the said bottle contained anything else than the aerated-water. The said Mr Minchella poured some of the said ginger-beer from the bottle into a tumbler containing the ice-cream. The pursuer then drank some of the contents of the tumbler. Her friend then lifted the said ginger-beer bottle and was pouring out the remainder of the contents into the said tumbler when a snail, which had been, unknown to the pursuer, her friend, or the said Mr Minchella, in the bottle, and was in a state of decomposition, floated out of the said bottle. In consequence of the nauseating sight of the snail in said circumstances, and of the noxious condition of the snail-tainted ginger-beer consumed by her, the pursuer sustained the shock and illness hereinafter condescended on. The said Mr Minchella also sold to the pursuer's friend a pear and ice. The averments in answer, so far as not coinciding herewith, are denied.

Reclaiming Note Page 4