Skip to the content

Appellant's Case Page 7


facilitate the said system of inspection. In this duty also the defender culpably failed, and the said accident was the direct result of his said failure in duty. If the defender and his said servants had carried out their said duties the pursuer would not have suffered the said shock and illness. The averments in answer are denied.

Ans. 3. Denied. Explained that the system employed at the defender's factory is the best known in the trade, and no bottle of ginger-beer has ever passed out there-from containing a snail. The defender exercised every care in the carrying out of that system, and every stage of the processes are and have been properly executed by the defender's servants.

    COND. IV. The pursuer suffered severe shock and a prolonged illness in consequence of the said fault of the defender and his servants. She suffered from sickness and nausea which persisted. Her condition became worse, and on 29th August 1928 she had to consult a doctor. She was then suffering from gastroenteritis induced by the said snail-infected ginger-beer. Even while under medical attention she still became worse, and on 16th September 1928 had to receive emergency treatment at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. She vomited repeatedly, and suffered from acute pain in the stomach, and from mental depression. She was rendered unfit for her employment. She has lost wages and incurred expense as the result of her said illness. The sum sued for is a reasonable estimate of the loss, injury and damage she has sustained as condescended on. The averments in answer are denied. Prior to the incident condescended on, the pursuer suffered from no stomach trouble.

Ans. 4. Not known and not admitted. Explained that the alleged injuries are grossly exaggerated. Explained further that any illness suffered by the pursuer on and after 26th August 1928 was due to the bad condition of her own health at the time.

    COND. V. The defender has been called on, but has refused, to make reparation to the pursuer for the loss, injury and

Appellant's Case

(As Amended)

Condescendence and Answers

Appellant's Case Page 7

Back to index