▁of ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁and ▁supported ▁Baron ▁Ald erson ' s ▁judgment ▁in ▁Winter bottom ▁v ▁Wright ▁that ▁" the ▁only ▁safe ▁rule ▁is ▁to ▁conf ine ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁recover ▁to ▁those ▁who ▁enter ▁into ▁the ▁contract ; ▁if ▁we ▁go ▁one ▁step ▁beyond ▁that , ▁there ▁is ▁no ▁reason ▁why ▁we ▁should ▁not ▁go ▁fifty ". ▁ ▁Lord ▁Buck master ▁dismiss ed ▁George ▁v ▁Sk iving ton , ▁op ining ▁that ▁" f ew ▁cases ▁can ▁have ▁lived ▁so ▁danger ously ▁and ▁lived ▁so ▁long ", ▁and ▁rejected ▁Heaven ▁as ▁a ▁tab ula ▁in ▁n auf rag io ▁( Lat in : ▁literally ▁" pl ank ▁in ▁a ▁ship w reck ") ▁that ▁was ▁un related ▁to ▁Don og h ue ' s ▁case ; ▁both ▁" should ▁be ▁buried ▁so ▁secure ly ▁that ▁their ▁pert urbed ▁spirits ▁shall ▁no ▁longer ▁v ex ▁the ▁law ". ▁He ▁concluded ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁common ▁law ▁support ▁for ▁Don og h ue ' s ▁claim ▁and ▁supported ▁Lord ▁Anderson ' s ▁judgment ▁in ▁M ull en . ▁" In ▁a ▁case ▁like ▁the ▁present , ▁where ▁the ▁goods ▁of ▁the ▁def enders ▁are ▁widely ▁distributed ▁throughout ▁Scotland , ▁it ▁would ▁seem ▁little ▁short ▁of ▁out rage ous ▁to ▁make ▁them ▁responsible ▁to ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁public ▁for ▁the ▁condition ▁of ▁the ▁contents ▁of ▁every ▁bott le ▁which ▁issues ▁from ▁their ▁works . ▁It ▁is ▁obvious ▁that , ▁if ▁such ▁responsibility ▁attached ▁to ▁the ▁def enders , ▁they ▁might ▁be ▁called ▁on ▁to