3 i 8 MILK AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH CHAP. 



infection was due to the milk, but the legal finding was that 

 it did so, and judgment was based upon that assumption. 

 The jury in the first trial found a verdict for the plaintiff for 

 106. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for 

 judgment or a new trial. It was not found that there had 

 been any negligence. The decision turned entirely on the 

 question as to whether or not the Company had warranted 

 the milk as being fit for food. C. E. Allan 1 (barrister-at- 

 law), discussing the case, remarks : " There was no express 

 warranty, but the Court held that there was an implied one. 

 When a person warrants an article to be fit for any particular 

 purpose he thereby renders himself liable for all damages that 

 may be caused if the article turns out to be unfit for that 

 purpose." In this case the Company, by their writings supplied 

 to the plaintiff, gave full particulars dealing with the pre- 

 cautions taken by them and as to their knowledge and skill. 

 The Master of the Eolls said : " The buyer could not escape 

 being permeated with the sense that ' he was secured against 

 the possibility of danger if he bought the defendants' milk." 

 This was the implied warranty, and showed that the buyer 

 relied on the sellers' skill or judgment. The Master of the 

 Eolls then dealt with the contention " that the buyer could 

 not rely upon the sellers' skill or judgment in a case where no 

 skill or judgment could have found out the defect. That was 

 a contention that a person could not become liable for an un- 

 discoverable latent defect." That was decided by the Court 

 of Appeal in Randall v. Newson, where it was held that on the 

 sale of an article for a specific purpose there was a warranty 

 by the vendor that it was reasonably fit for the purpose, and 

 that there was no exception as to latent undiscoverable 

 defects. 



This case is one of the first, if not the first, in which a 

 person or company has been found liable for damages for 

 communicating a disease to another through food. One result 

 will be that the giving of such implied warranties will be 

 largely avoided in the future. 



Since this case there have been others dealing with the 

 liability of milk-sellers in relation to infectious disease. The 

 following is of interest : In the Civil Court of the Liverpool 

 1 Public Health, 1905, xvii. p. 415. 



