▁in ▁the ▁particular ▁case " ▁( i . e . ▁neg lig ence ). ▁However , ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁general ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁and ▁therefore ▁no ▁general ▁li ability ▁for ▁neg lig ent ▁behaviour . ▁Only ▁limited ▁exceptions ▁to ▁this ▁rule ▁were ▁made ▁in ▁which ▁duties ▁were ▁found ▁in ▁specific ▁circumstances , ▁most ▁of ▁which ▁had ▁a ▁contract ual ▁background . ▁ ▁The ▁most ▁difficult ▁preced ent ▁for ▁Don og h ue ▁was ▁M ull en ▁v ▁AG ▁Bar r ▁& ▁Co ▁Ltd , ▁a ▁recent ▁Court ▁of ▁Session ▁case . ▁In ▁M ull en , ▁two ▁children , ▁John ▁and ▁Francis ▁M ull en , ▁and ▁Jean ie ▁O rib ine ▁had ▁separately ▁found ▁dead ▁m ice ▁in ▁their ▁bott les ▁of ▁g inger ▁be er , ▁manufact ured ▁by ▁AG ▁Bar r ▁& ▁Co ▁Ltd , ▁and ▁claimed ▁to ▁have ▁become ▁ill ▁through ▁drink ing ▁the ▁t aint ed ▁liquid . ▁In ▁separate ▁hear ings ▁in ▁Glasgow ▁and ▁Green ock ▁Sher iff ▁Court ▁respectively , ▁Or bine ▁was ▁successful ▁in ▁claim ing ▁compens ation ▁while ▁the ▁M ull ens ▁were ▁not . ▁The ▁losing ▁parties ▁of ▁both ▁cases ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁Session . ▁ ▁At ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁Session , ▁the ▁claim ants ▁argued ▁that ▁although ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁direct ▁evidence ▁that ▁the ▁manufact urer ▁had ▁been ▁neg lig ent ▁in ▁prepar ing ▁the ▁g inger ▁be er , ▁neg lig ence ▁could ▁be ▁pres umed ▁( res ▁i ps a ▁lo quit ur ) ▁from ▁the ▁mere