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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

ORIGINAL eve

v.

BoGqake Jaloneler

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

No (2 of 1941 Inudgment. delivered. at Gey, Sew ont Roos! 19

4H. 2 Grea, Govt Prat, Me, on Puagust IGu"!

| | : |

et baal

JUDGMENT.

Vv. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PROPRIETARY LIMITED.

RICH A.C.J.

~LEVI v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PROPRIETARY LTD.

, on JUDGMENT. Without calling'/coumsel for the respondent RICH,A.C.J. said—

This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Full Court of New South Wales,dismissing a motion for a new trial in an action for negligence in which the plaintiff had been non-suited. The declaration in the action Suxexumgkinguazexin alleged that the defendant manufactured and supplied to the plaintiff certain bath salts,that the defendant was negli- gent in manufacturing testing and analysing the same and that they were not good and safe bath salts but bad and dangerous,whereby the plaintiff contract -ed a disease of the skin. In the course of the trial townsel for the plain- tiff sought to amend the declaration by adding a count alleging negligence in failing to issue a notice warning users of the bath salts that they con- tained ingredients which might be injurious to specially sensitive persons ma and suggesting medical advice should be taken before the salts were used.

The learned trial judge non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that there was no evidence to support the declaratian;and he refused to allow the amendm -menton the ground that the evidence would not support the cout if it were

added.

I am in geheral agreement with the judgment of Jordan C.J. Assuming that the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff there is no evidence,I thin of any breach of duty. Bath salts are an ordinary commodity not knowm to have any injurious effect on the human body. The amalysis of the bath sal in question did not show that there was any deleterious element in them. No: was there any evidence that the defendant company was negligent in the pre- paration of the salts. Moreover evidence did not give rise to any inference that there was a duty on its part to issue a warning to users of its salts, and there was no evidence that the manufacturers knew or ought to have known that harmful consequences would follow from the user of the salts. It does not appear that the harm alleged to have ensued is a consequence that might reasonably be expected to follow from user. "As to the argument with regatd to the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur I agree with the lesmpned Chief Justice in thinking that the principle does not apply. Counsel for the plaintiff in the exe#cise of his discretion,no doubt exercised wisely did not confine the evidence he legd in such a way as merely to attract 'thie