Court: Privy Council
Date: 1936
Citation: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85
Judges: Lord Wright, Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan
Area of Law: Negligence, Product Liability, Consumer Protection
The case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) is a landmark decision in the area of consumer protection and negligence law. The Privy Council, in this case, expanded the scope of a manufacturer’s duty of care towards consumers, following the principles established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
The ruling solidified the legal duty of manufacturers to ensure their products are safe for consumption or use, regardless of whether the goods are directly ingested or applied externally. This case remains an essential authority in the field of product liability.
Facts of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
In June 1931, Dr. Grant, the claimant, purchased two pairs of woollen underwear and two singlets from John Martin & Co., a retailer. These garments were manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. There were no warnings or instructions on the packaging about washing the garments before wearing them, and Dr. Grant did not wash them before use.
After wearing the underwear, Dr. Grant developed a severe skin irritation within hours. He initially applied calamine lotion in an attempt to soothe the irritation but continued to wear the underwear for the rest of the week. Upon wearing the second pair of garments the following week, the irritation worsened, developing into a severe case of dermatitis. Dr. Grant later washed the first pair of underwear, but the condition continued to deteriorate.
Dr. Grant attributed the cause of his dermatitis to the excessive amount of sulphur compounds, such as sulphur dioxide and sulphites, in the wool used to manufacture the underwear. These chemicals had been left in the fabric during the manufacturing process. Dr. Grant sued the retailer, John Martin & Co., for breach of contract, claiming that the garments were not fit for purpose and were not of merchantable quality.
Additionally, he sued the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, alleging negligence in the preparation of the garments.
Legal Issues
The Grant v Australian Knitting Mills case raised several important legal issues:
- Negligence of the Manufacturer: Whether the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, was negligent in failing to ensure the garments were free from harmful chemicals.
- Breach of Statutory Warranties: Whether the garments were fit for purpose and of merchantable quality as per the sale of goods legislation.
- Duty of Care: Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumer even when the product is not consumed or ingested, but applied externally to the skin.
Arguments
Dr. Grant’s Argument: Dr. Grant’s legal team argued that the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, owed a duty of care to ensure that the garments were safe for use. They claimed that this duty was akin to strict liability, meaning that the manufacturer should be held responsible regardless of whether reasonable care was taken during the manufacturing process.
Furthermore, they contended that the presence of sulphur compounds in the wool made the garment unfit for use, leading to the dermatitis that Dr. Grant suffered.
Australian Knitting Mills’ Argument: The defendant manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills, argued that the case should be distinguished from Donoghue v Stevenson on two main grounds. First, they argued that the garments were external clothing, which could be inspected and handled before purchase, unlike the sealed bottle of ginger beer in Donoghue v Stevenson.
Second, they contended that there was a possibility of third-party interference with the garments during transportation or handling, and such tampering could have led to the presence of sulphur compounds in the garments. Therefore, they sought to limit their liability based on these possibilities.
Privy Council’s Judgement in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
The Privy Council, in its judgement, delivered by Lord Wright, ruled in favour of Dr. Grant, affirming the decision of the South Australian Supreme Court. Lord Wright outlined the key aspects of the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson and applied them to the present case, stating that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer even when the product was not ingested but applied externally.
Lord Wright highlighted the general principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson, which held that a manufacturer who sells a product that is intended to reach the ultimate consumer without being examined for defects, and who knows that failure to take reasonable care in the preparation of the product may result in harm to the consumer, owes a duty to ensure that the product is safe.
This principle, according to Lord Wright, applies to all products, whether they are food, medicine, or external clothing, provided the product is sold in such a form that there is no reasonable possibility of it being examined by the consumer before use.
The Privy Council rejected Australian Knitting Mills’ argument that the case was distinguishable from Donoghue v Stevenson because the garments were external clothing. Lord Wright stated that no logical distinction could be made between a noxious substance ingested internally and one applied externally. The essential point was that the product, in this case, the woollen underwear, reached the consumer in the same defective condition it had when it left the manufacturer.
The Privy Council also noted that the method of manufacturing the garments was generally correct, and the process was intended to be foolproof. However, the presence of excessive sulphur compounds could only have been due to some fault during manufacturing. Since the defect could not have been detected by any reasonable examination that could be made by the consumer, the manufacturer was liable for the harm caused by the dermatitis.
Principles of the Decision
The Privy Council’s decision in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills extended the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers, applying it to all types of products, not just food and medicine. The key points of the decision were:
- Duty of Care: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers if their products are sold in such a way that there is no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination before use, and the manufacturer knows that a failure to exercise reasonable care may result in harm to the consumer.
- Application to All Products: The duty of care extends to all products, whether they are ingested or applied externally, provided that the product is sold in such a way that the consumer cannot reasonably inspect it before use.
- Manufacturers’ Liability: Manufacturers are liable for defects that cause harm to consumers, even if the defect is not immediately apparent and the consumer cannot detect it. The manufacturer’s failure to ensure that the product is safe is sufficient to establish liability.
Conclusion
The case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) is an important decision in the evolution of product liability law and the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers. It expanded the principles established in Donoghue v Stevenson and made clear that manufacturers cannot avoid liability by arguing that the defect in their product could have been caused by third-party interference.
The case reaffirmed the importance of consumer protection and established that manufacturers must take reasonable care to ensure their products are safe for use, regardless of whether the product is ingested or applied externally.