Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Sudhir purchased a bottle of soft drink from a retailer. As he consumed more than half of the contents of the bottle, he found decomposed remains of a cockroach in the bottle. He vomited and fell sick on the thought of what has he consumed. He sued the manufacturer of soft drink for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of manufacturer.
DECISION:

• A. Sudhir cannot sue the retailer as he did not commit any mistake
• B. Sudhir cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence as there was no contract between them
• C. Sudhir can definitely sue the retailer as it was his duty to check the products before he sells them
• D. Sudhir can sue the manufacturer as he had a duty to ensure that bottles did not contain any such material

Answer 1

Answer: (D)

Sudhir can sue the manufacturer as he had a duty to ensure that bottles did not contain any such material

It was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson that tortious liability exists independent of contractual liability. It was based on similar facts wherein a dead snail was found in a ginger beer bottle. The manufacturer was held liable by the House of Lords although there was no direct contract between the manufacturer and the customer. But the duty of care towards neighbour nonetheless arose to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

Hence, D is the correct option.