STONE BOTTLES

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21248, 19 October 1940, Page 18 (Supplement)

STONE BOTTLES

FAMOUS LAW CASE SNAIL THAT GAINED FAME Makers of ginger beer will have cause for some relief in the disappearance of stone bottles as containers of their brew, for eight years ago the House of Lords placed a. heavy responsibility on those who sell drink in bottles into which one cannot see. It started with a partly-de-composed snail being found in a bottle of ginger beer that a girl was drinking and, after much litigation with solemn legal argument in several courts, it ended, four years later, with a decision by the House of Lords that is regarded as important by lawyers and has been the subject of many articles in legal journals, and in some lay journals, too. House of Lords Decision In 1928 a girl was taken into a cafe in Paisley, Scotland, by a friend for a drink. A bottle of ginger beer was ordered. The proprietor unwrapped a bottle and poured some of the contents into a tumbler. The girl drank seme and her companion was pouring the remainder of the bottleful into her tumbler when the decomposed remains of a snail floated out of the bottle. As a result of the nauseating sight of the snail in such circumstances, and in consequence of the impurities in the ginger beer she suffered from shock and severe gastro enteritis. The young woman claimed £SOO damages from the manufacturer, whom lie said had been negligent The lawyers who conducted the girl’s case asserted it was the duty of the ginger beer manufacturer to conduct his factory so that snails could not get into bottles and also to provide an efficient system of inspection of the bottles befyre they were filled. Vast contention followed in the courts, and she had finally to appeal to the House of Lords, which in 1932 decided in her favour. Legally, the importance of the case is that it established that the manufacturer of an article of food, sold by him through a distributor in a way which prevents the ultimate purchaser or consumer from discovering any delect, has a duty to see that there are no defects likely to cause injury to health. Precedent Set The case set a precedent for a wider scope of action. Previously it was thought that the only action that would lie would be one brought by the purchaser against the retailer. The case, however, established that the manufacturer has a duty to the consumer, who may not be the purchaser. The judge summed up this duty in the words. “Love thy neighbour.” Many technical articles on the case

have appeared in legal journals, and it has been used for the instruction and amusement of laymen, too. The “snail in the bottle case” is often mentioned with the “sulphides in the pants case.” which is legally similar and just as intriguing to the lay mind. In the “sulphides in the pants case” some woollen underpants which irritated the legs of their purchaser and gave him dermatitis caused the litigation.