▁meet ▁claims ▁of ▁dam ages ▁which ▁they ▁could ▁not ▁possibly ▁investigate ▁or ▁ins ure ." ▁ ▁Lord ▁Tom lin ▁con cur red ▁with ▁Lord ▁Buck master . ▁While ▁he ▁agreed ▁with ▁Lord ▁At kin ▁that ▁the ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁a ▁manufact urer ▁ow ed ▁to ▁its ▁consum ers ▁was ▁the ▁same ▁regardless ▁of ▁the ▁product ▁they ▁produced , ▁he ▁held ▁that ▁no ▁general ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁existed ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁fact ▁the ▁product ▁was ▁in ▁a ▁se aled ▁container ▁made ▁no ▁difference ▁to ▁the ▁finding ▁of ▁a ▁such ▁duty . ▁He ▁further ▁end ors ed ▁concerns ▁that ▁Lord ▁At kin ' s ▁bro ader ▁test ▁of ▁li ability ▁would ▁have ▁allowed ▁everyone ▁injured ▁in ▁the ▁Vers a illes ▁rail ▁accident ▁to ▁be ▁able ▁to ▁claim ▁compens ation ▁from ▁the ▁manufact urer ▁of ▁the ▁ax le ▁that ▁broke ▁and ▁caused ▁the ▁crash . ▁ ▁The ▁suggested ▁ratio ▁decid endi ▁( Lat in : ▁the ▁reason ▁for ▁the ▁decision ) ▁of ▁the ▁case ▁has ▁varied ▁from ▁the ▁narrow est , ▁j ok ingly ▁suggested ▁by ▁Julius ▁Stone , ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁merely ▁a ▁duty ▁" not ▁to ▁sell ▁op aque ▁bott les ▁of ▁be verage ▁containing ▁dead ▁sn ails ▁to ▁Sc ots ▁wid ows ", ▁to ▁the ▁wid est , ▁suggested ▁by ▁Lord ▁Norm and , ▁who ▁had ▁been ▁one ▁of ▁Stevens on ' s ▁coun sel , ▁that ▁Lord ▁At kin ' s ▁neighbour ▁principle ▁was ▁the ▁ratio . ▁ ▁Although ▁the ▁neighbour ▁principle ▁was ▁a ▁critical ▁part ▁of ▁Lord ▁At kin ' s