Lockhart v Barr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1943 |
| Date | 25 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | House of Lords |
HL
Lord Chancellor (Viscount Simon). Lord Thankerton. Lord Macmillan. Lord Wright. Lord Romer.
Negligence—Duty of manufacturer of article to ultimate consumer—Bottle of ærated water contaminated with phenol—Purchaser injured by drinking contents—Action of damages against manufacturer—Proof of negligence—Evidence.
The purchaser of a bottle of ærated water from a retailer was injured by drinking its contents, which were contaminated with phenol. No visual examination by the retailer or by the purchaser could have revealed its presence. In an action of damages brought by the purchaser against the manufacturer the Second Division held that the purchaser was entitled to damages. The House of Lords, proceeding on the view of the facts taken by the Division, affirmed their judgment,holding that it was unnecessary for the pursuer to prove exactly how it came about that phenol was present in the bottle in a quantity sufficient to injure the pursuer.
Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 S. C. (H. L.) 31, [1932] A. C. 562, applied.
(In the Court of Session, 16th July 1941–1941 S. C. 578).
Mrs Mary Wade Moir or Gardiner or Lockhart brought an action against Robert Barr, bottlers and ærated water manufacturers, Burnfoot, Falkirk, in which she concluded for £250 as damages for injury sustained by her through drinking a bottle of an ærated water known as "iron brew", manufactured by the defenders and purchased by her from a retailer, which she averred had been contaminated with phenol.
The Second Division having held that the pursuer was entitled to damages, the defenders appealed to the House of Lords.
For the facts of the case reference is made to the judgment of the Second Division delivered by the Lord Justice-Clerk.
The case was heard on 21st, 22nd and 25th January 1943. Counsel for the respondent were not called upon.
LORD CHANCELLOR (Viscount Simon).—Notwithstanding the elaborate and painstaking examination of the evidence in this case which has been presented to the House by Mr Duffes, I entertain no doubt that this appeal should be dismissed. The appeal cannot succeed unless the general view of the facts taken in the judgment of the Lord Justice-Clerk and concurred in by the other Lords of the Second Division is upset, and the burden lies on the defenders to show that that view is wrong. In my opinion the defenders fail to show this.
I do not propose, therefore, to review the facts in detail; it is enough to say that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPhail v Lanarkshire County Council
...C. 549. 24 10 and 11 Geo. VI, cap. 43. 23 11 and 12 Geo. VI, cap. 65. 26 1932 S. C. (H. L.) 31, [1932] A. C. 562. 29 1941 S. C. 578, 1943 S. C. (H. L.) 1. 31 1929 S. C. (H. L.) 51, [1929] A. C. 32 1908 S. C. (H. L.) 7, [1908] A. C. 176. 33 Glegg on Reparation, (3rd ed.) p. 55. 35 1925 S. C.......
-
Kelly Elizabeth Morton (ap) V. West Lothian Council
...British Railway Company 1923 SC (HL) 43; O'Hara v. The Central S.M.T. Company Limited 1941 SC 363; Lockhart v. Robert Barr 1941 SC 578, 1943 SC (HL) 1; Inglis v. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company 1941 SC 551; Elliott v. Young's Bus Service Limited 1945 SC 445; and Gunn v. Joh......
-
McVeigh v National Coal Board
...Cement ManufacturersWLR, [1964] 1 W. L. R. 768; O'Donnell v. Murdoch M'Kenzie & Co.SC, 1967 S. C. (H. L.) 63. 3 Lockhart v. BarrSC, 1943 S. C. (H. L.) 1. 4 Donoghue v. StevensonSC, 1932 S. C. (H. L.) 31, Lord Atkin at p. 55, Lord Macmillan at p. 65; Gilmour v. SimpsonSC, 1958 S. C. 477, Lor......
-
Lesley Anne Mcglinchey V. General Motors Uk Ltd
...was no obligation upon the pursuer to explain exactly how the accident occurred, in that regard reference was made to Lockhart v Barr 1943 SC(HL)1. Here the handbrake mechanism had failed because of a failure in a plastic tang which failed to secure the plastic grip on the handbrake. Altern......