▁accord , ▁brought ▁himself ▁into ▁direct ▁relationship ▁with ▁the ▁consumer , ▁with ▁the ▁result ▁that ▁the ▁consumer ▁[ was ] ▁entitled ▁to ▁rely ▁upon ▁the ▁exercise ▁of ▁dil ig ence ▁by ▁the ▁manufact urer ▁to ▁secure ▁that ▁the ▁article ▁shall ▁not ▁be ▁harm ful ▁to ▁the ▁consumer ", ▁an ▁exception ▁to ▁the ▁general ▁none x istence ▁of ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁that ▁applied ▁to ▁Don og h ue . ▁ ▁Lord ▁Thank erton ▁further ▁argued ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁impossible ▁" to ▁catalog ue ▁finally , ▁amid ▁the ▁ever - v ary ing ▁types ▁of ▁human ▁relationships , ▁those ▁relationships ▁in ▁which ▁a ▁duty ▁to ▁exercise ▁care ▁ar ises ▁apart ▁from ▁contract " ▁and ▁commented ▁that ▁he ▁" should ▁be ▁sorry ▁to ▁think ▁that ▁the ▁met icul ous ▁care ▁of ▁the ▁manufact urer ▁to ▁exclude ▁inter ference ▁or ▁ins pection ▁by ▁the ▁[ s eller ] ▁should ▁rel ieve ▁the ▁[ s eller ] ▁of ▁any ▁responsibility ▁to ▁the ▁consumer ▁without ▁any ▁corresponding ▁assumption ▁of ▁duty ▁by ▁the ▁manufact urer ". ▁ ▁Lord ▁Mac mill an ▁exam ined ▁previous ▁cases ▁and ▁held ▁that ▁" the ▁law ▁takes ▁no ▁cogn is ance ▁of ▁care less ness ▁in ▁the ▁abstract . ▁It ▁concerns ▁itself ▁with ▁care less ness ▁only ▁where ▁there ▁is ▁a ▁duty ▁to ▁take ▁care ▁and ▁where ▁failure ▁in ▁that ▁duty ▁has ▁caused ▁damage ". ▁Whether ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁duty ▁and ▁bre ach ▁would ▁be ▁exam ined ▁by ▁the ▁standard ▁of ▁the ▁reasonable ▁person . ▁These ▁circumstances ▁" must ▁adjust ▁and ▁adapt ▁itself ▁to