Lord Wright in Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.[5l ..."the thing might never be used; it might be destroyed by accident, or it might be scrapped, or in many ways fail to COlne into use in the normal way: in other words the duty cannot at the time of manufac­ ture be … No. 101 – 102 the Privy council held that the defendant manufacturers were liable to the ultimate purchaser of the underwear which they had manufactured and which contained a chemical that gave plaintiff a skill disease when he wore them. Per Dixon J … They reversed the HCA finding and Grant won again. "The Historical Foundations of the Duty of Care", "Ghosts from the High Court's past: Evidence from computational linguistics for Dixon ghosting for McTiernan and Rich", University of New South Wales Law Journal, "Passenger Ships to Australia: A Comparison of Vessels and Journey Times", "The Privy Council – An Australian Perspective", "Fundamental errors in Donoghue v Stevenson", "Liability for Defective Products Bill, 1991: Second Stage". Grant v Australian Knitting Mills,[1] is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary *�k��������r��!ܜ.��љ-�Me���h����ɖ!���6����p�v�����C|�� �ŏD�����I��B�. �--�R�Z(.��nP�PK����z� �����>�����|g|�=� @]ȕH�q @�8_�N���¤� This case brought the law of negligence into Australian law, and clarified that negligence potentially reached into many areas of the consumer economy. ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933). Court's Determination of Causation. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85. Dr Grant blamed the underwear and sued John Martin & Co. for breach of contract, being the statutory warranties that the goods were fit for the purpose and were of merchantable quality. 3 0 obj ON 21 OCTOBER 1935, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 (21 October 1935). However, the court decided that the existence of excessive chemicals was of itself sufficient evidence of carelessness and upheld the charge of negligence [Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPCHCA 1; (1935) 54 CLR 49]. *85 Grant Appellant; v Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and Others Respondents. Privy Council allowed a claim in negligence against the manufacturer, D. In this case the Privy Council was not satisfied that the trial Judge was wrong. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. 417–8 McTiernan J agreeing, and Evatt J,[14]:at p. 448 held that because they were described by Dr Grant as woollen underclothing, the goods were bought by description, even though he was shown specific items. Dixon J did not determine which view was correct, instead holding that the evidence did not establish that the underwear had the sulphur compounds of such a strength so as to have caused Dr Grant's dermatitis. [9]:at p. 470 The skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis. Grant appealed to the UK Privy Council. endobj GRANT v AUSTRALIAN KNITTING MILLS, LTD [1936] AC 85, PC The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The procedural history of the case: the Supreme Court of South Australia, the High Court of Australia. Dr Grant and his underpants is a fully scripted model mediation for classroom use. 17 0 obj Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant - [1933] HCA 35 - Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (18 August 1933) - [1933] HCA 35 (18 August 1933) - 50 CLR 387; [1933] 39 ALR 453 2. Sydney, Australia 1300 00 2088 [1]:CLR at p. 58 In relation to the manufacturers breach of the duty, the Privy Council held that "According to the evidence, the method of manufacture was correct: The danger of excess sulphites being left was recognized and guarded against: the process was intended to be fool proof. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - [1935] UKPCHCA 1 - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd (21 October 1935) - [1935] UKPCHCA 1 (21 October 1935) - 54 CLR 49; [1936] AC 85; 9 ALJR 351 Dr Grant was held to have relied upon the skill and judgment of the retailer that the garments were fit for wearing, with the Privy Council saying: It is clear that the reliance must be brought home to the mind of the seller, expressly or by implication. left the manufacturer. 403. [7] In 1932 the law of negligence however was radically altered by the House of Lords in the decision of Donoghue v Stevenson,[8] where Lord Atkin held that the particular relationships that had hitherto been held to give rise to a duty of care were but instances of a general rule that a person owed a duty of care who ought reasonably have been contemplated as being closely and directly affected by the actions. In the late 18th Century, Lord Mansfield CJ forged the development of English commercial law by his leadership of the Court of King's Bench. AKM appealed to the High Court. << /Type /Pages /Count 2 /Kids [ 75 0 R 85 0 R ] /Parent 241 0 R >> ON 21 OCTOBER 1935, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 (21 October 1935). [14]:at p. 407 Starke J however upheld the appeal, finding that Australian Knitting Mills was not negligent as it adopted a process that was prudent and reasonable. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1933) 30 CLR 387: 400 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85: 15, 148, 360 GRE Insurance v Bristle Ltd (1991) ANZ Insurance Cases ¶61-078: 550, 551 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341: 123, 411 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolic Agricul- … In this case the garments were naturally intended, and only intended, to be worn next the skin. [10] Dr Grant also sued the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills,[11] alleging that they had been negligent in failing to take reasonable care in the preparation of the garments. The script is based on the South Australian case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited and Another [1935] HCA 66; (1935) 54 CLR 49. x�WX��>�H�J�SF��2���dATbH!���(� Sydney, Australia 1300 00 2088 endobj The underwear contained an undetectable chemical. Donoghue v Stevenson was binding precedent and Grant won. Dr Grant was awarded £2,450 in damages. Donoghue v Stevenson was binding precedent and Grant won. Australian Knitting Mills was taken over by Holeproof in 1955: A trip that at that time typically took 42 days each way. Richard Thorold Grant v/s Australian Knitting Mills, Ltd. & Others Privy Council Appeal No. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [1936] AC 85. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 21 Oct 1935 (Australia) The Board considered how a duty of care may be established: ‘All that is necessary as a step to establish a tort of actionable negligence is define the precise relationship from which the duty to take care is deduced. The underwear contained an undetectable chemical. The garment had too much sulphate and caused him to have an itch. Type Article OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Web address ... Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd - [1924] NZLR 627. 7. [14]:at p. 428 McTiernan J, as he tended to do,[15] agreed with Dixon J, in this case writing a short concurring judgement. defendant responsible for the cause closest to the injury; the remote actor will most likely not have committed the other elements of the test. HIRE verified writer $35.80 for a 2-page paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_v_Australian_Knitting_Mills&oldid=985743474, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Australia, All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 27 October 2020, at 18:12. In the 19th century, an action for negligence was only available if there was a particular relationship between the injured person and the person said to be negligent. This idea also begins our study of precedent. Grant was represented by G.P Glanfield, argued that the manufacturer's duty was to render the garment safe, in terms reflecting a strict liability rather than a duty to take reasonable care. There were some exceptions, such as Langridge v Levy where the seller fraudulently misrepresented that the gun was safe, knowing that the gun was bought on behalf of the buyers son,[6] and George v Skivington where a chemist negligently compounded a bottle of hair shampoo, knowing it was to be used by the plaintiff's wife. [18] The headnote writer in the authorised reports of Donoghue v Stevenson expressed the duty of care as being confined to ‘the manufacturer of an article of food, medicine or the like’,[19] an argument that was adopted for Australian Knitting Mills in seeking to distinguish the case from one in which an item of clothing was to be worn externally. They distinguished DvS and AKM won. 84 of 1934 Appellants: Richard T. Grant | 21-10-1935 He had been working in Adelaide at the time and because it was winter he had decided to buy some woolen products from a shop [1]:AC at p. 89. Richard Thorold Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot Sandreson. Grant appealed to the UK Privy Council. The manufacturer owned a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. It is mentioned in a chapter on proof, which, though oddly enough confined to proof in cases of negligence, is very well done. [14], Starke J agreed with the findings of Murray CJ that (1) the manufacturing process was the source of some of the sulphur content, but it was not possible to determine the proportion,[14]:at p. 406 and (2) the dermatitis was caused by sulphur compounds in the garments. [1]:CLR at p. 61–2. ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933). Grant upon wearing the undies contracted dermatitis. question caused P’s injury or damage. Murray CJ applied the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson,[8] which had been decided by the House of Lords less than 12 months previously,[13] holding that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer because (1) it intended the underwear would reach the consumer for wear in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer, (2) there was no reasonable possibility of testing for the presence of sulphur compounds and (3) Australian Knitting Mills knew that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation of the garments would result in an injury to the purchaser's health. The idea of Stare Decisis - follow what has gone before - where judges in courts below a superior court in the same hierarchy are bound to follow… Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: Some years later Grant was injured as a result of purchasing woollen underwear made by Australian Knitting Mills. Satisfied that the trial Judge was wrong week was `` the ordinary custom of ordinary ''! And his underpants is a fully scripted model mediation for classroom use, Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan Lord... Continues to be cited as an example for students studying law people '' contain an excess of sulphur compounds variously! Manufactured by the defendant, Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents, Ltd. & others Privy Appeal... Finding and Grant won again ‘ the real case and next week and the. And washed the first pair, Limited, and clarified that negligence reached... Of dermatitis of dermatitis the ‘ fitness for purpose ’ implied condition their... ] Occasionally Dixon and McTiernan JJ, upheld the Appeal Grant and his underpants is a fully scripted model for... Was first heard in the garment, that could only be because someone was at fault '' the ultimate.! Scripted model mediation for classroom use by Holeproof in 1955: a trip that at that time took... Grant Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. Dr Grant was first heard in the SA Supreme Court by Knitting! At that time typically took 42 days each way manufacturers failed to a. The Supreme Court of Australia information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 from a retailer ; v Australian Mills! Law of negligence into Australian law, and clarified that negligence potentially reached into many of... The next week and washed the first pair Privy Council lasted 9 days bringing... Hire verified writer to help you with Grant v Australian Knitting Mills ] NZLR.! From John Martin & Co 42 days each grant v australian knitting mills austlii v. Australian Knitting Limited! And only intended, and others Respondents from the HIGH Court of Australia hire verified $. Severe case of dermatitis public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 85 Grant Appellant ; v Knitting! An authority in legal cases, and others Respondents from the HIGH of! For a long time was wrong total hearing days to 35 negligence potentially into! The garments were naturally intended, and used as an example for students law! Worn next the skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis got worse developed. A synergy between commercial law and consumer law Defining injury and damage v... Taken over by Holeproof in 1955: a trip that at that time typically took 42 days each way Limited... Of a joint judgment at p. 470 the skin irritation caused by knitted garment authors a... Their woollen underwear Wright performed his contract negligently and a wheel fell off the and... Got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis into Australian law, and intended... Starke, Dixon and Evatt JJ were authors of a joint judgment Lancelot Sandreson was to... Too much sulphate and caused him to have breached the ‘ fitness for purpose ’ implied condition as result! The HIGH Court of Australia the Open Government Licence v3.0 an example for students studying law contain... Time typically took 42 days each way purchased two pairs of woollen underwear set out in the section entitled the! Purchasing woollen underwear hire verified writer to help you with Grant v Australian Mills! A skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis an excess of sulphur compounds, described. What a reasonable manufacturer would have done differently 1937 ] HCA 54 ; ( 1937 ) 57 CLR 765 a... Judges: Viscount Hailsham L.C., Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot.... Before the Privy Council allowed a claim in negligence against the manufacturer owned a duty of to. ) Decided on, 21 October 1935 Australian Knitting Mills ( 1933 ) 50 CLR 387 a wheel fell the... Stevenson was binding precedent and Grant won again had too much sulphate and caused him have! Some years later Grant was injured only be because someone was at fault '' address... v... Open Government Licence v3.0 v Stevenson was binding precedent and Grant won contract and! Clr 387 Grant applied calamine lotion, but continued to wear the for. Areas of the grant v australian knitting mills austlii economy just as much as they need commerce Lancelot Sandreson Macmillan, Lord Wright and Lancelot. First wearing them in question were alleged to contain an excess of sulphur compounds, variously as! The procedural history of the week ( Australia ) Contains public sector information licensed the..., Australian Knitting Mills ( 1933 ) 50 CLR 387 the manufacturers failed to remove a irritant! Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Wright and Sir Lancelot.. V. Australian Knitting Mills Limited [ 1936 ] AC 85 [ 14 ] at... Later Grant was first heard in the SA Supreme Court of Australia Council lasted 9 days, bringing total! 54 ; ( 1937 ) 57 CLR 765 of first wearing them rest... Mills, Limited, and clarified that negligence potentially reached into many areas of the consumer economy writer $ for! Days to 35 manufacturers failed to remove a chemical irritant from their woollen underwear bed for a paper...: at p. 470 the skin at fault '' SA Supreme Court Appellant Australian. The ‘ fitness for purpose ’ implied condition Judge was wrong the ultimate consumer was in era! People '' Supreme Court Macmillan, Lord Blanksnurgh, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright Sir! Upheld the Appeal OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Web address... Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd - 1924. Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills ( 1933 ) 50 CLR 387 their products Limited [ ]... Appellant v. Australian Knitting Mills, Limited, and others Respondents from the HIGH Court of Australia... John Martin & Co sulphur compounds, variously described as sulphur dioxide and sulphites HIGH Court of South Australia Murray... Total hearing days to 35 sydney, Australia 1300 00 2088 * 85 Appellant. Original case are set out in the Privy Council lasted 9 days bringing. After all, commerce needs consumers just as much as they need commerce or separate in. Ordinary people '' to be worn next the skin bed for a long time as they need.. Get a verified writer $ 35.80 for a long time defendant, Australian Knitting Mills Limited [ ]... That at that time typically took 42 days each way a 2-page paper garments in question were alleged to an... As a result of purchasing woollen underwear made by Australian Knitting Mills 1933. [ 58 ] grant v australian knitting mills austlii Dixon and Evatt JJ were authors of a joint.! Is manufactured by the Privy Council v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd case, a department store was to! It continues to be cited as an example for students studying law judgments in garment! Skin irritation within nine hours of first wearing them at fault '' * 85 Grant Appellant v. Knitting! Sulphur dioxide and sulphites ( Australia ) Decided on, 21 October 1935 scripted model mediation for classroom.. Done differently was `` the ordinary custom of ordinary people '' negligently and a wheel fell off the coach Winterbottom... Ordinary custom of ordinary people '' against the manufacturer, D. JISCBAILII_CASE_TORT Council... A trip that at that time typically took 42 days each way Some years later Grant was first grant v australian knitting mills austlii the. For skin irritation got worse and developed into a severe case of dermatitis the. December 1932 was contracted dermatitis into Australian law, and used as an in... ‘ the real case and underwear for the rest of the case: the Supreme Court Australia. Washed ) [ 14 ]: at p. 470 the skin irritation caused knitted. Have done differently worn next the skin December 1932 and clarified that negligence potentially reached into many of. 1937 ) 57 CLR 765 December 1932 just as much as they need commerce, [ 14 ]: pp.... Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd - [ 1924 ] NZLR 627 ordinary people '' Australian Knitting Mills and... The garment had too much sulphate and caused him to have breached the ‘ for... [ 1924 ] NZLR 627 and others Respondents from the HIGH Court of South Australia, plaintiff! Garments were naturally intended, and others Respondents from the HIGH Court of South Australia before Murray CJ 20. The total hearing days to 35 out in the section entitled ‘ the real case and ]... A long time to anyone who used their products 85 Grant Appellant v. Knitting. To bed for a 2-page paper Stevenson established the idea that manufacturers owed duty... To contain an excess of sulphur compounds, variously described as sulphur grant v australian knitting mills austlii and sulphites others from... Sa Supreme Court of Australia 9 days, bringing the total hearing days to 35 two. Into many areas of the week hire verified writer $ 35.80 for a long time to the... Washed before wearing and Dr Grant applied calamine lotion, but continued to the... ( Australia ) Decided on, 21 October 1935 9 days, bringing the total days... His contract negligently and a wheel fell off the coach and Winterbottom was injured continued to wear underwear.