▁presence ▁of ▁dead ▁m ice ▁in ▁g inger ▁be er ▁bott les . ▁However , ▁the ▁court ▁ruled ▁against ▁the ▁claim ants . ▁The ▁majority ▁held ▁that ▁on ▁a ▁fact ual ▁basis ▁AG ▁Bar r ▁& ▁Co ▁Ltd ▁had ▁re but ted ▁a ▁pres umption ▁of ▁neg lig ence ▁and ▁that ▁on ▁a ▁legal ▁basis ▁product ▁manufact ur ers ▁only ▁ow ed ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁to ▁the ▁ult imate ▁consum ers ▁if ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁contract ual ▁relationship ▁between ▁the ▁parties ; ▁if ▁the ▁dangerous ness ▁of ▁the ▁product ▁was ▁intention ally ▁with h eld ▁from ▁the ▁consumer ▁( in ▁which ▁case ▁there ▁might ▁also ▁be ▁a ▁claim ▁for ▁fra ud ); ▁or ▁if ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁warning ▁of ▁the ▁intr insic ▁dangerous ness ▁of ▁certain ▁products , ▁such ▁as ▁explos ives . ▁Only ▁Lord ▁Hunter ▁diss ented , ▁finding ▁that ▁neg lig ence ▁to ▁be ▁infer red ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁bott le ▁contents ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁exam ined ▁( because ▁of ▁the ▁dark ▁glass ) ▁gave ▁rise ▁to ▁a ▁specific ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁that ▁would ▁allow ▁consum ers ▁to ▁claim ▁for ▁dam ages . ▁ ▁However , ▁neither ▁of ▁the ▁circumstances ▁in ▁which ▁neg lig ence ▁could ▁be ▁found ▁in ▁product ▁li ability ▁cases ▁applied ▁to ▁Don og h ue : ▁g inger ▁be er ▁is ▁not ▁intr ins ically ▁dangerous , ▁nor ▁did ▁Stevens on ▁intention ally ▁mis re present ▁the ▁threat ▁it ▁pos ed . ▁Nevertheless , ▁Don og h ue ' s ▁coun sel ▁argued