Skip to the content

Respondent's Case Page 10



1869 L.R. 5, Ex. 1.


clude that the case of George v. Skivington is to be preferred to many of the other cases.

Cavalier v. Pope, 1905, 2 K.B. 757 per M.R. at p.761:
1906 A.C. 428 per Lord Atkinson at p.433:
Blacker v. Lake & Elliot Ltd., 1912 106 L.T. 533 per Lush J. at p.541.

Blacker v. Lake & Elliot, Ltd., 1912, 106 L.T. 533 per Hamilton, J., at p. 537:
Beven on Negligence, p.49:
Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, p.430.
    George v. Skivington, however, is not a decision from which the present Appellant can glean any assistance. The case has more than once been interpreted as one in which the Court held that a general duty was owed by the defendant on the ground that he knew the hairwash he had manufactured to be dangerous, but none the less sold it. He was in effect, as the averments in the case were construed, guilty of a fraud on the public. In that view the case fits in with the other decided cases, and is of no assistance to the present Appellant. If the case was not decided on that ground, but laid down the proposition that a duty was owed by a manufacturer of an article to the public generally, then, it is humbly submitted, the case was wrongly decided, and the frequent disrespect into which it has fallen is well merited.
1929 S.C. 461.     Lord Hunter, who as already indicated, in this case formally repeated the dissent from the opinion of the majority of their Lordships of the Second Division which he had taken in the case of Mullen v. Burr & Co., seems to base his judgment on the view that the two exceptions to the general rule above specified are not exhaustive and that the present case falls into a third exception from that rule, which third exception, however, his Lordship does not explain, and which, indeed, it seems difficult to define.

57 Am. Dec. 455.

pp.456-8. 1842, 10 M. & W. 109
    The authorities which Lord Hunter quotes as justifying such a contention, however, in the Respondent's view not only fall short of it, but definitely run counter to it. His Lordship refers to Thomas v. Winchester as an instance of such a third exception. That case, however, was expressly treated by the American courts as a case of a negligent mistake of a dealer in a thing per se dangerous, and upon that ground was distinguished from Winterbottom v. Wright. So far from

Respondent's Case Page 10

Back to index