The document summarizes several landmark cases that helped establish the legal concept of duty of care in tort law: 1) Winterbottom v Wright established that a contract alone does not create a duty of care to third parties not in privity of contract. 2) Donoghue v Stevenson established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to take reasonable care to avoid injury from their products. 3) Grant v Australian Knitting Mills extended this duty to manufacturers of clothing that caused injury to the plaintiff when worn.

2. The husband did not, in the circumstances, rely upon the skill or judgment of the retailer, and could not recover under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, s 14(1), but there was a sale by description, and, therefore, a breach of the implied condition that the goods should be of merchantable quality, and he could recover under the Sale of Goods Acts 1893, s 14(2).Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd<br />Facts: <br />The plaintiff’s husband was killed when he had an epileptic fit and fell from a painting platform 20 feet above the ground. The platform was unsafe, because it did not comply with the statutory safety regulations, but the plaintiff’s husband had also been negligent in not informing his employer that his doctor had forbidden him to work at heights because he could not suffer a fit and then fall. <br />TCH:<br />Cork’s death was caused, in equal measure, by both his own negligence and also the employer’s failure to comply with safety standards.<br />Dietrich v Northampton <br />Facts:<br />The pregnant mother slipped on a defect in a highway of Northampton, Massachusetts, and fell. At the time, she was between four and five months along in pregnancy. Her fall caused a miscarriage and the child, “although not directly injured, unless by a communication of the shock to the mother,” was too little advanced in fetal life to survive premature birth. There was testimony, however, based upon observing motion in its limbs, that it did live for ten or fifteen minutes.<br />TCH:<br />No claim could be made because the child was part of its mother in the womb and did not possess the separate existence necessary to stand as a plaintiff in court. <br />Watt v Rama<br />Facts:<br />A child sued for damages for injuries received as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred while she was in utero.<br />TCH:<br />A child who at or after birth suffered injuries caused by the negligence of another in driving his motor vehicle, before the child was born, was entitled to sue the driver for negligence.<br />Distillers v Thompson<br />Facts:<br />TCH:<br />Liable for bodily injury.<br />