Damages Claim Fails Over Purchase of Hat

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 8, 10 January 1936, Page 8

Damages Claim Fails Over Purchase of Hat

“NO IRRITANT DYE’’

SYDNEY, Doc. 34

In the Supreme Court yesterday- a jury of four returned a verdict for Lowes, Limited, city storekeepers, who were defendants in an action in which David William Dillcn, a labourer, of Randwick, claimed damages of £2OOO. Dillon brought the action under section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, alleging that he had contracted dermatitis (a skin condition) through wearing a Battersby (English) hat which he bought at the defendant company’s store, and that the hat was not reasonably fit and proper to be worn, and was not of merchantable quality as warranted. Besides returning the general verdict for defendant, the jury answered a set of questions submitted to them by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Davidson. The vital questions were answered favourably to the defendants. Among other things, the jury said that the rash on Dillon’s forehead was not caused by the hatband of the hat purchased by him, and that there was no irritant aniline dye present in a noxious form it the hatband.

The jury dealt with the questions as follows:—

At the time of the purchase and wearing of tho hat, did the plaintiff have a normal skin?—Unable to answer.

Or did he have the skin of a person within the description of 4 or 5 pei cent, of persons said to be susceptible to the effect of the irritant aniline dyes?—Unable to answer. Or did he have a skin peculiarly or excessively susceptible to such irritants? —On medical evidence, yes. Was there an irritant aniline dye present in a noxious form in the hatband?—No.

Was the rash on the plaintiff’s forehead caused by the hatband of the lr purchased bv him from tho defendant? —No.

Did the plaintiff expressly make known to the seller tho purposo for which tho hat was required?—No. Or did he do so impliedly-?—Yes.

If so, did he make known such purpose so as to show that he relied on the seller’s judgment or skill? —Yes. * If so, was the hat reasonably lit for the purpose for which it was required? —Yes.

If there was any defect in the hat, would examination by tho plaintiff have revealed it?—No.

Was the hat of merchantable qual-

ity?—Yes,