> I'm not sure that the claimant's subjective reasoning process should be

> relevant to whether the defendant owed a duty.

It is a question of what makes the defendant's conduct negligent vis a vis

the claimant. If we think that supplying eggs without warning by caterers

is not generally negligent per se vis a vis potential consumers (and I

think that is probably correct, unlike the case of nuts) what made it

potentially negligent vis a vis this claimant was that on this occasion he

would not take the normal precautions someone with an egg allergy would,

because it was food in a Sikh temple. That is why Moor-Bick LJ stresses

this point at para 25 (which I extracted) and why he thinks this case is

'unusual'. If the deceased was unaware of his egg allergy or if, as Steve

suggests, he was the sort of person who thought "My doctor says I

shouldn't risk eating eggs, but I don't listen to doctors" then his death

was not wrongful as it was not the sort of injury the caterer had a duty

to protect him from suffereing.

Negligence 'in the air' is not enough, so if the claimant had died because

he had slipped on some of the eggy ras malai spilled on the floor, no

claim.

Rob

--

Robert Stevens

Professor of Commercial Law

University College London