Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd [1929] ScotCS CSIH_3 (20 March 1929)

Mullen v AG Barr & Co Ltd [1929] ScotCS CSIH_3 (20 March 1929)

The majority held that the defenders owed no duty of care in delict to the pursuers as ultimate consumers, absent privity of contract, because ginger beer is not inherently dangerous and there was no knowledge of danger. Even if a duty existed, the pursuers failed to prove negligence, as the defenders' bottling system was shown to be adequate and the occurrence was an accident not attributable to fault.

Citation
[1929] ScotCS CSIH_3
Parties
Pursuer: Francis Mullen (as tutor and administrator-in-law for John Mullen and Francis Mullen, minors); Pursuer: Mrs M'Gowan; Defender: A.G. Barr & Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 March 1929
Procedural Posture
Delict (tort) Action for Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session (inner House)
Outcome
Actions dismissed; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability
Legal Topics
Manufacturer's Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Privity of Contract, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Defective Products
Tort Law Delict Product Liability Manufacturer's Liability Negligence Duty of Care Privity of Contract Res Ipsa Loquitur +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Mullen (as tutor and administrator-in-law for John Mullen and Francis Mullen, minors)

Pursuer

Mrs M'Gowan

Pursuer

A.G. Barr & Co. Ltd.

Defender

Procedural Posture

Delict (tort) Action for Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session (inner House)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care in delict to ultimate consumers absent contractual privity
  2. 2 Whether negligence by the manufacturer or its employees was established on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the defenders owed no duty of care in delict to the pursuers as ultimate consumers, absent privity of contract, because ginger beer is not inherently dangerous and there was no knowledge of danger. Even if a duty existed, the pursuers failed to prove negligence, as the defenders' bottling system was shown to be adequate and the occurrence was an accident not attributable to fault.

Court Disposition

Actions dismissed; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the claims of the pursuers in both actions
  • No order as to damages, as liability was not established