▁Out er ▁House ▁on ▁ 2 7 ▁June ▁ 1 9 3 0 . ▁In ▁his ▁judgment , ▁delivered ▁on ▁the ▁same ▁day , ▁he ▁held ▁that , ▁as ▁a ▁general ▁principle , ▁there ▁should ▁be ▁li ability ▁for ▁neg lig ent ▁prepar ation ▁of ▁food . ▁I ▁am ▁un hes it ating ly ▁of ▁opinion ▁that ▁those ▁who ▁deal ▁with ▁the ▁production ▁of ▁food ▁or ▁produce ▁flu ids ▁for ▁be verage ▁purposes ▁ought ▁not ▁to ▁be ▁heard ▁to ▁ple ad ▁ignor ance ▁of ▁the ▁active ▁danger ▁which ▁will ▁be ▁associated ▁with ▁their ▁products , ▁as ▁a ▁consequence ▁of ▁any ▁imper fect ▁observation ▁of ▁clean lin ess ▁at ▁any ▁stage ▁in ▁the ▁course ▁of ▁the ▁process ▁of ▁manufact ure ▁... ▁T aint ed ▁food ▁when ▁offered ▁for ▁sale ▁is , ▁in ▁my ▁opinion , ▁amongst ▁the ▁most ▁subt ly ▁pot ent ▁of ▁' d anger ous ▁goods ', ▁and ▁to ▁deal ▁in ▁or ▁prepare ▁such ▁food ▁is ▁highly ▁relevant ▁to ▁infer ▁a ▁duty . ▁I ▁fail ▁to ▁see ▁why ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁danger ▁has ▁been ▁introduced ▁by ▁an ▁act ▁of ▁neg lig ence ▁and ▁does ▁not ▁advert ise ▁itself , ▁should ▁release ▁the ▁neg lig ent ▁manufact urer ▁from ▁a ▁duty , ▁or ▁afford ▁him ▁a ▁supp lement ary ▁defence . ▁ ▁English ▁case ▁law ▁that ▁required ▁that ▁li ability ▁for ▁inj uries ▁resulting ▁from ▁goods ▁that ▁were ▁not ▁intr ins ically ▁dangerous ▁to ▁have ▁a ▁contract ual ▁basis ▁( bre ach ▁of ▁war rant y ) ▁was ▁dismiss ed ▁by ▁Lord