Question 1
Grant v AKM 1936, Privy Council (UK) Australia
FACTS: Grant developed dermatitis after wearing underwear manufactured by AKM.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE: Whether AKM’s underwear had caused Grant’s dermatitis.
JUDGMENT: AKM’s product contained a chemical residue which caused Grant to develop dermatitis. There was no other explanation for his illness arising at the same time as he first wore the product.
Question 2
AKM owed Grant a duty to supply underwear that was fit to be worn, and which was not contaminated with chemicals that may cause skin infections.
Question 3
The court decided that AKM had supplied underwear containing a residue of sulphur dioxide. When combined with body perspiration, this forms sulphuric acid. The coincidence of wearing the underwear for the first time and developing dermatitis, combined with an absence of any other explanation, led the court to conclude (on the balance of probabilities) that the chemical residue had caused Dr Grant’s illness.
Question 4
AKM’s failure to remove the sulphur dioxide from the underwear prior to consumer sale was an omission which amounted to a breach of duty of care. It was reasonably foreseeable that this chemical would cause a skin irritation in people who wore the underwear.