LEVI V. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PTY. LTD. 13/1941

LEVI V. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PTY. LTD. 13/1941

There was no evidence that the bath salts were harmful to normal persons or that the defendant was negligent in their manufacture, testing, or in failing to warn users; the harm was due to the plaintiff's abnormal sensitivity, and no duty of care was breached.

Parties
Appellant: Levi; Respondent: Colgate Palmolive Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 1941
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Products Liability, Amendment of Pleadings, Duty to Warn
Tort Law Negligence Products Liability Amendment of Pleadings Duty to Warn

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Levi

Appellant

Colgate Palmolive Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant in the manufacture or testing of bath salts
  2. 2 Whether there was a duty to warn users of potential harm from the product
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the bath salts were harmful to normal persons or that the defendant was negligent in their manufacture, testing, or in failing to warn users; the harm was due to the plaintiff's abnormal sensitivity, and no duty of care was breached.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs as appeal heard in forma pauperis