• In the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 ac 85, it was held that manufacturers were liable in negligence caused to a consumer by latent defects in their own products.

Facts of the Case

  • C bought two pairs of woollen underwear which was manufactured by D.
  • C got dermatitis from the excess mount of sulphite in the underwear and nearly died as a result.
  • C sued in negligence.
  • D argued that as the garments were packaged in paper, there was a possibility someone could have tampered with the goods before they arrived to C.

Issues in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 ac 85

  • Could the unproven third-party involvement be enough to absolve liability from D?

Held by Privy Council (Australia)

  • C able to claim compensation through negligence

Lord Wright

  • Here, the potential of interference with the package was not enough to remove liability from D.
  • “That conclusion means that the disease contracted, and the damage suffered by the appellant, were caused by the defective condition of the garments which the retailers sold to him, and which the manufacturers made and put forth for retail and indiscriminate sale. The Chief Justice gave judgment against both respondents, against the retailers on the contract of sale, and against the manufacturers in tort, on the basis of the decision in the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson” pg. 100

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.