<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Smith v Jones [2024] HCA 1</title>
</head>
<body>
<article>
<h1>Smith v Jones [2024] HCA 1</h1>
<div class="case-header">
<p><strong>High Court of Australia</strong></p>
<p>Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman and Gleeson JJ</p>
<p>15 February 2024</p>
<p>S123/2023</p>
</div>
<h2>Orders</h2>
<p>[1] Appeal allowed.</p>
<p>[2] Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 10 March 2023 and in their place order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.</p>
<p>[3] The respondent pay the appellant's costs in this Court and in the Full Court.</p>
<h2>Reasons for Judgment</h2>
<p>[4] The central question in this appeal is whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. The appellant was injured when a defective product manufactured by the respondent caused harm during ordinary use. The primary judge found that the respondent had breached its duty of care, but the Full Court reversed that finding on appeal.</p>
<p>[5] For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied that the primary judge was correct. The respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant as the ultimate consumer of the product. The principles established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 remain applicable and the Full Court erred in its analysis of the relevant factors.</p>
<p>[6] It is well established that a manufacturer of products owes a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the products are safe for their intended use. This duty extends to all persons who may foreseeably be affected by the manufacturer's negligence.</p>
<p>[7] The evidence before the primary judge established that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the defect in the product prior to its distribution. The respondent failed to implement adequate quality control measures and did not recall the product when the defect became apparent.</p>
<p>[8] In these circumstances, we find that the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant. The appeal should be allowed with costs.</p>
</article>
</body>
</html>
