Appendix Page 24

24

establish the preliminary plea that there was any duty on the part of the manufacturer to take reasonable care so far as the consumer of the manufactured article was concerned. I think there is no doubt that both Lord Ormidale and Lord Anderson made it an express ground of judgment. It is equally true, I think, as your Lordship has said, that what you did say in that case indicated fairly clearly that that also was the view entertained by your Lordship. At the same time, it was not made an express ground of judgment, but the opinion was reserved. The result of that seems to me to be this, that, as I read the opinion which I expressed in the case of Mullen, I am not under obligation in the present case to assent to the view which your Lordship proposes, upon the ground that the case is governed by the decision in Mullen's case.

    All that I desire to say in this case is that I see no reason whatever, after the further argument presented, to alter the opinion which I there expressed. Notwithstanding the elaborate and interesting opinion expressed by the Lord Ordinary, I prefer to rest my opinion upon the grounds which I previously stated. As regards the Lord Ordinary's view, I have great difficulty in seeing, notwithstanding the circumstance that the English system of jurisprudence is different from the Scottish system of jurisprudence, that there can be any essential difference in the duty owned by the manufacturer of goods in England to customers who have actually consumed goods manufactured by him from the duty which is owed by a similar manufacturer in Scotland.

    I, therefore, formally dissent from the course which your Lordship proposes, and I do so simply upon the ground I have indicated.