▁of ▁care ) ▁and ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁third ▁exception ▁that ▁Don og h ue ▁was ▁attempting ▁to ▁introduce ▁had ▁no ▁basis ▁in ▁preced ent . ▁ ▁The ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁gave ▁judgment ▁on ▁ 2 6 ▁May ▁ 1 9 3 2 ▁after ▁an ▁unus ually ▁long ▁delay ▁of ▁over ▁five ▁months ▁since ▁the ▁hearing . ▁The ▁court ▁held ▁by ▁a ▁majority ▁of ▁ 3 – 2 ▁that ▁Don og h ue ' s ▁case ▁dis closed ▁a ▁cause ▁of ▁action . ▁The ▁majority ▁consisted ▁of ▁Lord ▁At kin , ▁Lord ▁Thank erton ▁and ▁Lord ▁Mac mill an . ▁ ▁Lord ▁At kin ▁commented ▁that ▁he ▁did ▁" not ▁think ▁a ▁more ▁important ▁problem ▁has ▁occupied ▁your ▁Lord ships ▁in ▁your ▁jud icial ▁capacity , ▁important ▁both ▁because ▁of ▁its ▁bearing ▁on ▁public ▁health ▁and ▁because ▁of ▁the ▁practical ▁test ▁which ▁it ▁applies ▁to ▁the ▁system ▁under ▁which ▁it ▁ar ises ". ▁He ▁agreed ▁with ▁coun sel , ▁based ▁on ▁his ▁own ▁research , ▁that ▁Sc ots ▁and ▁English ▁law ▁were ▁identical ▁in ▁requiring ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁for ▁neg lig ence ▁to ▁be ▁found ▁and ▁explained ▁his ▁general ▁neighbour ▁principle ▁on ▁when ▁that ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁ar ises . ▁ ▁He ▁supported ▁this ▁broad ▁test ▁by ▁cit ing ▁Heaven ▁v ▁P ender ▁and ▁rejected ▁the ▁cases ▁in ▁favour ▁of ▁a ▁nar ro wer ▁interpretation ▁of ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁with ▁the ▁example ▁of ▁neg lig ently ▁poison ed ▁food , ▁for ▁which ▁there ▁had ▁been ▁no ▁claim ▁against ▁the ▁manufact urer