▁of ▁the ▁law . ▁I ▁doubt ▁whether ▁the ▁whole ▁law ▁of ▁tort ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁compr ised ▁in ▁the ▁golden ▁maxim ▁to ▁do ▁unto ▁your ▁neighbour ▁as ▁you ▁would ▁that ▁he ▁should ▁do ▁unto ▁you ." ▁ ▁Pre ced ent ▁The ▁case ▁was ▁review ed ▁by ▁Frederick ▁Pol lock ▁in ▁a ▁ 1 9 3 3 ▁edition ▁of ▁Law ▁Qu arter ly ▁Review , ▁in ▁which ▁he ▁commented ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁doubt ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁importance ▁of ▁the ▁decision ▁and ▁that ▁" a ▁notable ▁step ▁has ▁been ▁made ▁in ▁en larg ing ▁and ▁clar ifying ▁our ▁conception ▁of ▁a ▁citiz en ' s ▁duty ▁before ▁the ▁law ▁... ▁not ▁to ▁turn ▁dangerous ▁or ▁no x ious ▁things ▁loose ▁on ▁the ▁world ". ▁However , ▁Don og h ue ▁otherwise ▁attract ed ▁little ▁attention ; ▁it ▁was ▁understood ▁only ▁as ▁preced ent ▁that ▁manufact ur ers ▁were ▁li able ▁for ▁inj uries ▁their ▁goods ▁cause ▁their ▁ult imate ▁consum ers ▁rather ▁than ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁general ▁principle ▁of ▁li ability ▁in ▁neg lig ence . ▁The ▁majority ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁( L ord ▁Justice ▁C ohen ▁and ▁Lord ▁Justice ▁As qu ith ) ▁therefore ▁held ▁in ▁Cand ler ▁v ▁C rane , ▁Christmas ▁& ▁Co ▁that ▁Don og h ue ▁had ▁not ▁affected ▁tort ious ▁li ability ▁for ▁neg lig ent ▁mis statement . ▁This ▁narrow ▁understanding ▁of ▁Don og h ue ▁changed ▁with ▁the ▁cases ▁of ▁Hed ley ▁By r ne ▁v ▁H eller ▁in ▁ 1