Case Analysis: Grant V. Australian Knitting Mills [1936] Ac 85, Privy Council
Garvita Mishra, India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER), Goa
Judgment delivered on: 21 October 1935
I. Introduction
Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills case was decided by the Privy Council in 1935. Mr Grant, who was the appellant, invoked the neighbour principle established by Lord Atkin in the infamous case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a decomposing snail was found in a ginger- beer bottle three years before this case was decided by the House of Lords.
This is a landmark judgement, and thus it evolved modern law of torts and jurisprudence of product liability along with the practical application of the Sale of Goods Act. Earlier, the neighbour principle established in Donoghue was only applicable to food and drinks. Lord Wright's judgment refused that limitation, which laid the groundwork for every product liability case that extended from defective cars to pharmaceutical recalls to faulty consumer electronics.
II. Facts of the Case
1. Dr Richard Thorold Grant was based in Adelaide, South Australia and was practising medicine.
On 3 June 1931, he bought two pairs of underpants and two singlets marketed under the name “Golden Fleece” and was retailed by the company “John Martin & Co. Ltd”. This company owned a departmental store in Adelaide. The garments had originally been manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., based in Victoria.
On the morning of Sunday, 28 June 1931, twenty-five days after purchase, he put on the underpants. However, that evening, he was faced with itching around his ankles. The next morning, a redness had appeared on each ankle, roughly two and a half inches by one and a half inches. This was followed by severe dermatitis spreading across his whole body.
