▁reasoning , ▁and ▁was ▁therefore ▁part ▁of ▁the ▁ratio ▁of ▁his ▁judgment , ▁neither ▁of ▁the ▁other ▁jud ges ▁in ▁the ▁majority ▁express ly ▁end ors ed ▁the ▁principle . ▁Robert ▁He ust on ▁therefore ▁suggests ▁that ▁case ▁only ▁supports ▁the ▁claims ▁there ▁can ▁be ▁duties ▁in ▁tort ▁even ▁if ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁contract ; ▁that ▁manufact ur ers ▁o we ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁to ▁the ▁ult imate ▁consum ers ▁of ▁their ▁goods ; ▁and ▁possibly ▁that ▁neg lig ence ▁is ▁a ▁separate ▁tort . ▁" No ▁amount ▁of ▁post hum ous ▁c itation ▁can ▁of ▁itself ▁transfer ▁with ▁ret ros pective ▁effect ▁a ▁proposition ▁from ▁the ▁status ▁of ▁ob iter ▁dict um ▁[ pass ing ▁comments ] ▁to ▁that ▁of ▁ratio ▁decid endi ." ▁ ▁Sub sequ ent ▁events ▁The ▁legal ▁basis ▁for ▁the ▁claim ▁now ▁settled , ▁the ▁case ▁was ▁returned ▁to ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁Session ▁for ▁a ▁hearing ▁scheduled ▁for ▁January ▁ 1 9 3 3 . ▁In ▁the ▁hearing , ▁Don og h ue ▁would ▁have ▁to ▁prove ▁the ▁fact ual ▁elements ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁that ▁she ▁had ▁claimed , ▁including ▁that ▁there ▁had ▁been ▁a ▁sn ail ▁in ▁the ▁g inger ▁be er ▁as ▁a ▁result ▁of ▁Stevens on ' s ▁neg lig ence ▁and ▁that ▁this ▁sn ail ▁had ▁caused ▁her ▁ill ness . ▁However , ▁Stevens on ▁died ▁on ▁ 1 2 ▁November ▁ 1 9 3 2 , ▁aged ▁ 6 9 . ▁One ▁year ▁later , ▁Stevens on ' s ▁execut ors ▁were