THE JOURNAL OF THE

Society of Dyers and Colourists Vol. 64-No. 10 OCTOBER 1938

Proceedings of the Society WEST RIDING and MIDLAND SECTIONS

Meetings held at the Victoria Hotel, Bradford, on 27th January 1938, Mr. F. WILSON in the chair, and at University College, Nottingham, on 24th March 1938, Dr. E. R. TROTMAN in the chair.

Dermatitis Alleged to be Due to the Wearing of Textiles C. M. WHITTAKFJR

In conjunction with many colleagues in the dye-making and dye-using industries, the present author has been concerned in following the position created by dermatitis claims in those cams in which this complaint has been alleged to be due to the wearing of textiles. This paper, therefore, consists largely of quota- tions from various opinions expressed by medical authorities, together with extracts from judgments in various cases and extracts of evidence given during the hearing of some of these caaes.

It should be clearly understood that the present author’s colleagues on the Dermatitis Committee have no responsibility either for the selection made or for any personal comments.

Dermatitis is no new thing, because John Evelyn, in his famous diary, gives details of a fictitious case of dermatitis in a “plain ordinary silent workmg wench” in the entry on 6th Auguet 16706. Under the date 16th June 1670, $here appears the following-“lord Stafford rose from the table in some disorder because there were roses stuck about the fruit when the desaert was set upon the table; such an antipathy, it mms, he had to them as once Lady Selenger also had and to the degree that as Sir Kenelm Digby tells us, laying but a rose upon her cheek when fihe was asleep it raised a blister.”

This entry clearly anticipated the modern conception of hypersensitiveness, or antipathy aa Evelyn calls it, of certain persons to certain plants.

“On 7th May 1662, livedo was experimentally produced before Prince Rupert and the assembly* by a man thrusting his arm into a vacuum produced by Boy1e”l. Possibly this waa tho origin of the drastic bottle cure for a boil. - ~~~

Vhlr assembly wan formally ellrolled a8 the Royal bociety on 13th July 1662.

A 2

It iR proposed to diacuss, as a layman, points which have occurred to the present author in the experience gained in work connected with the two Committees which have en- deavoured to study dermatitis from the point of view of resisting claims in which dermatitis is alleged to have arisen from the wearing of textiles. The records obtained show that claims cover every textile fibre, and it is important for dye-makers and dye-users to note, as becomes members of this Society, that claims arising from undyed and unbleached natural fibres have been reported, e.g. cotton in its unbleached state.

As regards dermatitis alleged to have been caused by the wearing of textiles, the position may be stated very simply-The Salea of Goods Act 1893, Section 14, reads as follows--(‘Mer- chandise must be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is sold.” Claims for damages are based upon this Act. It will be readily appreci- ated that “reasonably fit” is a phrase which gives joy to the legal profession, because it may be argued ad libitum. It is first cousin to that precious phrase about the dye position when it was agreed that “the dye-user was not to be put in an unduly disadvantageous position”.

“Unduly disadvantageous” and “reasonably fit” are two phrases which have caused a great deal of trouble in the colour-using industries. The first phrase was only introduced to draw a parallel, and need not be mentioned again in this paper.

Counsel’s opinion about “reasonably fit” is that, until it has been interpreted in the Court of Appeal or preferably in the House of Lords, every judge in the Court of First Instance may interpret the phrase as he wishes. Once it has been interpreted in the Court of -4ppeal or the House of Lords, all judges must follow that interpretation.

448 WHITTAKER-“DERMATITIS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO WEARING TEXTILES” Oel. 1088

The solution to the position which the textile interests seek to ostablish is that idiosyncrasy of the claimant should be accepted as a success- ful defence against a claim for dermatitis alleged to be due to tho wearing of a textile. It is felt that, until idiosyncrasy is accepted as a defence, the textile interests will suffer from an injustice. If a doctor administers a drug to a patient according to the accepted medical practice, and that patient becomes ill thereby, or unfortunately dies, no action rightly lies against the doctor.

If an individual breaks out into a rash after eating lobster, rhubarb, eggs, and many other foods, that individual simply has to stop eating that particular food, and no action lies against the supplier.

Now the doctor does at least see the patient to whom he administers the drug; he can tell whether the patient is clean; he knows if the female has arrived at tho menopause; he is in a position first to administer a minute doso before giving the effective dose. On the other hand, the dye-maker may make tho dye in Manchester; twenty pieces may be dyed at the same time in the same vat in Bradford; the garments may be made u p in the East End of London, and sold to 100 different people in all parts of Great Britain, and one person in Liverpool, whom the dyer and dyemaker have never seen, is idiosyncratic to something in the garment. What is the result ? The dyemaker and dyer may be mulcted in heavy damages. Does any logically minded person consider that such a verdict is fair if a certificate from a qualified analyst can be produced to show that the garment was properly dyed according to the accepted trade priwtice and contained no known irritant ?

It is accepted by coroners that some people are hypersensitive to drugs; i t is also accepted that some people cannot eat certain foods. Eminent dermatologists have shown that a small minority of people are hypersensitive to fibres, dyes, and chemicals. Why should the textile interests be treated separately I

The two medical terms which arise in derma- titis cases are idiosyncrasy and allergy. Sir W. L. BrownP states that “Allergy is a chemical idiosyncrasy, and in Jonathan Hutchinson’s phrase ‘idiosyncrasy is individuality run mad’ ”. That phrase expresses what the present author regards as the salient feature of allergy, i.0. a fierce and frightened attempt on the part of the cell to conserve its chemical identity. Morley Roberts has made the profound remark that “immunity is assimilation”. “To some foreign proteins we are naturally immune, i.e. we can assimilate them automatically; to others we acquire immunity, i.e. we learn to assimilate them. But to some foreign proteins immunity is neither congenital nor acquired. The tissues continue to resent their intrusion and will not assindate them. &ch proteins

excite anaphylaxis in varying degrees. Richet dofined anaphylaxis as the last stand of the race against adulteration of its protoplasm. In extreme degrees anaphylactic shock is fatal because assimilation would mean too profound an alteration of cellular structure. In lesser degrees anaphylaxis declares itself in violent attempts to get rid of the foreign invader, whether through the alimentary canal, the respiratory tract, the skin, or by effusion into the joints. From this point of view allergy may be an inborn resentment.”

It would appear that, to the orcliniiry layman, the definitions laid down by Brown are the most easily understood, but Ingrams states-“One of the recognised varieties of eczematous dermatitis is that in which a skin develops a specific hypersensitiveness towards one or more external agents which in themselves are harmless to the normal individual. The result of such idio- syncrasy differs in no way front ordinary constitutional eczematous dcrrriiLtit is or from dermatitis due to non-specific hypersensitiveness and provoked by such forms of irritation as exposure, change of temperature, soaps, water, friction, or household chemicals. Dye derma- toses are of this specific character. The reactions in themselves are not recognisable as forms of dye dermatitis-as was suggested in a recent medico-legal case-but the site of the eruption suggests hair, felt, or fabric dye as R probable cause. No final opinion can be given on these cases without investigation, and for this purpose the patch test gives reliable and absolute evidence. . . . No clinician could seriously suggest that the reaction of hair or fur dye dermatitis or of fabric dye dermatitis was not due to idiosyncrasy. The clinical evidence in support of this view is abundant, while the alternative suggeution that such con- ditions are due to an irritant substance, using the term irritant in the ordinary sense to mean something irritant to the majority of normal persons, serves only for purpose of legal argu- ment, and cannot stand up to serious clinical investigation. The workers in the dye industries are not subject to more dermatological troubles than other trades-whereas the irritant theory would make this industry an impossibility in practice. The patient suffering from hair-dye dermatitis has often had exactly similar treat- ment on other occasions, and the ~ a m e treatment is being carried out without ill-effect upon hundreds of other people. A patch test in such a patient will produce an embarrassingly positive reaction, while the same patch test in other subjects gives a negative result. The sufferer from fur-dye dermatitis cnn give her fur to a hundred other persons to wear without fear of provoking dermatitis, and they will suffer no harm. The patient with fabric-dye dermatitis can be similarly generous with her offending dress without fear of provoking dormatitis, and she is wearing material troatcd with dyestuffs

W. 1038 WHlTTAKEX---“DERMATITIS ALLEUED TO BE DUE TO WEARINQ TEXTILES” 448 - which are in contact with the skin of thousands of individuals and are serving their legitimate purpose without injury. Dye dermatitis, like plant dermatitis or light dermatitis, and an infinite variety of other sensitisation reactions, is exactly analogous to urticaria produced by sensitisation urticaria to asthma resulting from sensitisation to roses. Moat medical authorities probably appreciate this, if they do not always preach it, but it would mean the saving of large sums of money, of invaluable time, and of much unnecessary ill-health, if legal authorities could be persuaded t o accept it.”

Amongst the comments made by the eminent dermatologist, Dr. W. J. O’Donovan, in a lecture before the London Section of this Society in 1933, were the following--“How was a diagnosis of dye dermatitis made ‘2 Firstly, all the patient’s statements were disregarded. The fact that a rash appeared when a lady wore fur was not accephd. . , . Many women simply returned the fur to the costumier and received their money back, but there were women who, at the proepect of obtaining money for their injuries, went to law. They could maintain the rash for IS months and, as the uncertainties of the caae increased, so the dermatitis grew worse. But if the Cour t administered the ‘golden ointment’ the rmh vanished in a few days, ’ ’

Could any medical man put more powerfully the cam of the textile interests when he says that “a woman could deliberately maintain a rash for 18 months, and when she had received the money, the rash vanished in a few days.” There is on record the case of a manufacturer who settled out of court a claim for dermatitis alleged to be due to wearing some of his material. Within a fortnight he got another claim from another member of the same family through the same retailer.

The present author suggests that modern medical opinion is strongly in favour of the textile trade’s point of view, viz. that dermatitis alleged to arise from wearing apparel is due to the idiosyncrasy of the individual. The incidence of idiosyncrasy varies with different substances, but textile interests maintain that, in the normal marketing of merchandise, it is utterly im- possible for them to take any reasonable and practicable precaution to determine whether m y purchaser is idiosyncratic to the article being sold; further, they consider it to be unjust that proved idiosyncrasy of the purchaser is not accepted as a defence in claims for damages alleged to be caused by wearing apparel.

In the United States, idiosyncrasy is accepted as a defence. The following judgment, given in 1935, is of i n t e r e s t

“Mrs. Sims claimed that when she ate ‘Feen-a-Mint’, rashes developed due to the phenolphthalein in the gum. Judge Steinbrink held that a preparation is not dangerous to

human health simply because one person in a multitude of thoso using it happens to suffer ill- effects; that there was no negligence or breach of warranty on the part of the manufacturer or the seller, and that no liability could attach to either of them. The plaintiff, he found, was peculiarly susceptible to this particular medicine and her injuries resulted not from the medicine, but from her idiosyncrasy to the medical ingredients. He held that phenolphthalein was safe, and put the sensitivity of persons to phenolphthalein as in the same category as those peculiarly sensitive to any number of common and ordinary drugs and foods, e.g. aspirin, bromides, sea food, and the like.”

What is the position in the British Courts 1 The following are quotations from various judgments-&. Justice Porter, sitting in the King’s Bench Division, Liverpool, on 21st February 1936, when hearing the action Foy v. Saloman, aaid--“I think that ‘reasonably fit’ does not there mean fit for the majority of persons or even fit for a considerable majority of persons. It means something more than t,hat. It means it is fit for any well-known class of persons or recognid class of persons even though they may be comparatively few in number compared with the vast bulk of persons who purchase fur.”

Mr Justice Goddard said, on 16th-16th November 1933-“If it were a mere case of hypersensitiveness he did not think i t would avail the defendant a t all; if they sent out a substance which was toxic to a sensitive person they would still be liable.”

On the other hand, Mr. Justice du Parcq said a t the Leeds Assizes in July 1935-“The idiosyncrasy which rendered a person liable to dermatitis could be acquired; it was not enough to say that in fact the purchaser had not that idiosyncrasy.”

Again, Mr Justice Atkinson, in the case of Vincent v. John Barker & Co. Ltd., on 7th June 1937, said when giving judgment-“I would have on that the very greatest ditficulty in finding as a fact that the soap did cause this lady her trouble; but, if it did, it must be because of some peculiar idio- syncrasy in herself. After all, the only warranty or condition, which is implied on the sale of soap, is that the goods should be reasonably fit for use as soap. Because some person happens to be prone to irritation when the vast majority of other people would not be, I cannot say that proves that the soap is not reasonably fit to be used as soap seeing that it has been used for years, and in vast quantities, without any complaint. It is not as if one piece of soap was made by itself. Each piece is merely part of a very big batch of soap; and there has been no complaint as to the rest of the batch. The evidence was that from the same batch high- priced medicated soaps were made. I 6nd myself wholly unable to come to the conclusion

460 WEIITTAKER-“DERMATITIS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO WEARING TEXTILES” 01% 1038

that this soap was not reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was sold.”

The judgment by Mr. Justice Atkinson is the most favourable which has been given from the textile interests’ point of view, because he accepts what the present author terms numerical evidence when he says “Each piece is merely part of n very big batch of soap; and there haa been no complaint as to the rest of the batch.”

Cox5 has stated-“Textile dyes, on the other hand, are applied to great quantities of the fabric by processes usually involving boiling in large vats and subsequent washhg, so that the possibility of variations in the distribution of the dye or the presence of residual impurities present in one part and absent from another part is almost nil. If a defect exists, it is necessarily a defect of the whole batch or roll of the fabric, or of the complete garment.”

Mr. Justice Hawke, however, a t Leeds Assizes in a case known as the Shampoo Powder case, rejected “numerical evidence”; 85,000 packets had been sold with only one claim. I n his judgment the judge said that he was not satisfied that Mrs. Wroe suffered from dermatiti merely because she had an idiosyncrasy in respect of something in the powder. It might have hurt anybody else in just the same way. “What I do find is that a bulk of this powder was supplied and that an individual part of that bulk caused the trouble, and I think that individunl part was not reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was contracted to be fit.” This shampoo contained powdered borax, powdered cocoanut oil soap, and small pro- portions of perfume and oil of bay.

These five judgments completely “box the compass”, and show the difficult and chaotic position with which textile interests have to cope.

A few examples of the amazing evidence given in the witness box are as follows-An analyst in one case, when shown a fur, said, in answer to a question, “I should think the whole of it is dyed !” When asked the question-“By the whole of i t , do you mean the pelt as well ? ” He replied--“I mean the hair I ” Next he was asked-“How could the whole of the hair be- dyed without the pelt ? ” and he answered- “The practice is, I believe, to shave the hair off and fix it on again I ”

Surely such an “expert” should be laughed out of Court, but the judge protected him during his cross-examination.

In a case in which the claim concerned a self- knitted jumper, the claimant’s doctor was asked why the claimant did not get dermatitis on her hands if she knitted the wool herself 1 The doctor answered--“She would not have the wool on her hands; she holds the needles in her hands.” It is gratifying to note that the claim was unsuccessful.

In another case it was stated by two doctors that “it is very rare for dermatitis i% ensue from

the first wearing of the suspected article”. One of them answered--“I think I can still quite honestly say I do not know of a single case following upon the first application.” This appears to be extraordinary when, in a large number of the claims reported to our Committees, it is repeatedly stated that the irritation started after wearing the article for the first time, and did not recur until the same article was worn again. Cases have been reported of the irritation starting in an hour.

An Australian dermatologist has expressed his opinion2 that all forms of dermatitis had an external origin. Is it not common knowledge in lay as well as medical circles that many foodstuffs cause dermatitis ? Yet a derma- tologist says that all dermatitis is of external origin ! In another case, it was shown that a general practitioner in a London suburb saw patients in connexion with cases, which might come into court, at an address in Harley Street. The dermatitis case which was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from Australia, and heard in 1935, viz. Grant u. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., in which the claimant was awarded €2,450 damages, naturally caused a great deal of uneasiness in British textile circles, but it should be realised that idiosyncrasy was not an issue a t the trial. “I thmk I am justified in saying that the Committee of which I am Chairman would never have advised defence, because the gar- ments, viz. woollen pants, could not have received a clean certificate from an analyst”. It was found that 0.02% sulphur dioxide by weight was present in one of the pants after washing, whilst in an unwashed garment from the same firm, a cold water extraction yielded 0.11% by weight of sulphite. It was also admitted that the extremities of the pants were of a different webbing from the balance of the garments; the dermatitis started where the different webbing was joined on the pants. It was not clear from the evidence whether separate analyses of the body and ankles of the pants were made and found to vary. However, their Lordships said -that the principle of their decision was summed up in the words of Lord Atkin, viz.-“A manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left hini with no reasonable pomibility of interinedinte examina- tion, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the comumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasanable care.”

Lord Justice Wright said--“It iH clear that the decision treats negligence, where there is a duty to take care, as a specific tort in itself.”

The Australian case was lost on account of negligence in course of manufacture; it was

Oel. 1038 WHITTAKER--“DERMATITIS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO WEARINU TEXTILEB” 451

shown in the first Australian Court that the claimant was not idiosyncratic to scoured wool. The following sentence from the judgment of Lord Justice Wright has caused the Dermatitis Committee most concern, viz. “Sulphuric acid is an irritant which would produce dermatitis in a normal skin if applied in garments under the conditions* existing when the appellant wore the underpants.”

Regarding residual acid in wool after an acid dyebath, many people will be aware that it consists of two parts, one of which is removable by washing and one of which adheres to the wool and cannot be removed by prolonged washing after dyeing. In view of Lord Justice .Wright’s dictum in the Australian judgment, the Dermatitis Committee set up a Sub-Com- mittee consisting of Mr. H. H. Bowen (Bradford Dyers’ Association Ltd.), Mr. J . Barritt (Wool Industries Research Association), Mr. F. L. Goodall (Geigy Colour Co. Ltd.), and Mr. A. Whitehead (British Cotton and Wool Dyers’ Association Ltd.) to investigate this problem, and to put forward a standard method of deter- mining the total amount of residual acid in wool and the amount of acid extractable by water. The thanks of all textile interests are due to these gentlemen for the large amount of work they have done on this problem.

Their report of the examination of the various published methods will be published shortly, but it may be said that the pyridine method described by Banitt3 is recommended by the Committee. It is shown that sulphuric acid is more tenaciously held than formic or acetic acid, but the amount of sulphuric acid retained by wool in the form of commercial cloths varies from 0.1% to 2.8%. All this acid is neutralised by washing in 4yo soap flakes solution, whereas extraction of a fabric con- taining 2.63% residual sulphuric acid by dis- tilled water for 4 hr. a t 40” C. in a 1 : l O wool- water ratio, only extracts 4th of the acid in the fabric, i.e. only a very small amount.

Although all chemists would accept Lord Justice Wright’s dictum that “sulphuric acid is an irritant which would produce dermatitis in R normal skin”, they would only accept it with some specification of strength behind it. In the same way, chemists would agree that glacial acetic acid is an irritant to a normal skin, but the everyday use of dilute acetic acid, as vinegar, proves the necessity of a specification of concentration before any Lord Justice’s dictum can be accepted.

The activities of the Dermatitis Committee are concerned with three phases of the problem- (1) Obtaining as complete a record as possible of all claims for dermatitis and giving advice upon handling them. (2) Stopping the “racket” of cases which are handled by speculative lawyers. (3) Fighting a case to establish that idiosyncrasy of the claimant is a sufficient defence.

The Committee have recommended a standard method of handling claims. To that end, leaflets have been printed containing Ingram’s opinion already quoted, and the claimant is asked to hand the leaflet to her doctor. This has been sufficient in more than one incipient claim to stop it. If the claim is proceeded with, it should be handled promptly; if time is wasted by passing evasive letters up and down the chain from retailer to dyemaker, damages in a successful claim will be “continuing” as the lawyer phrases it. The garment should be obtained and sent to one or two qualified analysts. In doing this, the analyst should be told to put facts only on his certificate. If he wishes to give his personal opinion on the garment, let him do so in a covering letter, but he must be told to confine his certificate to his findings of fact-positive and negative.

It is often surprising to read the reports of some- analysts. In one case, an analyst, after failing to discover p-phenylenediamine, in a coloured garment, submitted it to destructive distillation and then found this compound. No dye chemist would be surprised a t that result, but it had no bearing on the question at issue. Any analyst who has had experience of dermatitis cases, is aware that his evidence does not carry the same weight as medical evidence. Killick and Ingramlo have said that “chemical analysis can yield no evidence of the biological effect of a dyed material.”

To prove that an article is “reasonably fit”, it is essential that it should be given a clean “bill of health” by an analyst. The Dermatitis Committee is not out to defend bad work, and insists on a satisfactory analysis before taking the next step, because negligence is a specific tort in itself.

The Committee recently had a child’s jumper of foreign origin sent to it for its opinion. It was knitted from a two-fold yarn of wool and cotton. The cotton had been dyed to a full royal blue with a basic dye and rubbed very badly. Such a case could not possibly be defended, yet the distributor was surprised a t the Committee’s advice and said that it was not sold to be worn next the skin.

The treatment by the courts of analysts’ evidence is very uncertain. In the Foy u. Saloman case, one analyst found p-aminophenol, whilst two did not. This is how Justice Porter dealt with the position. He said-“I think the solution is simply this, that the skin was dipped quickly and rather carelessly; that you got a difference between different parts of the skin whether the skin was dipped quickly and rather carelessly or not, and that it happened that in the parts which they (the two analysts) took there was either none or such minute portions that they were not able to find them, whereas in the case of the other expert’s he was able to find them.”

A3

462 WHITTAKER-“DERMATITI8 ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO WEARING TEXTILES” Od. I938

This decision indicates one of the many difficulties of handling these cases. The analysis of two different portions of the same garment is inevitable unless a joint analysis is made by analysts nominated by claimant and defendant, whilst some analysts argue that the whole of the garment should be analysed. It is, of course, obvious that, if the whole of tho garment is immersed in water, patch tests on the claimant with the garment, in its original state are impossible, yet patch tests are equally as important as the analysis, particularly if i t is desired to prove idiosyncrasy.

If the analyst’s report is favourable, the next step is to ask the claimant to submit to examina- tion by a dermatologist who will include a patch test. If the claimant gives a positive reaction and control subjects negative, idiosyncrasy may bc advanced as a defence. The patch test cannot, of course, test the effect of friction.

There iA no doubt that medical opinion is becoming increasing1 definite about idio- syncrasy and dermatitis. Some very interesting cases are recorded, In one case a man was sensitive to lanoline which is the basis of most skin ointments. This case is interesting from the points of view both of the clinician and the industrid hygienist. A European, aged about 40 yeam, had for 7 years been subject at irregular intervals to attacks of acute dermatitis, which had been diagnosed and treated as of a syphilitic nature. In the last attack, viz. in January 1934, his face was bright rod and cedematous to such a degree that he could not open his eyes; there was a patch of weeping eczema on the neck, and the whole trunk “scarlatiniform” in appearance; legs and feet were red, cedematous, and showed sores and bullse; temperature was 100” F. and pulse rate 100 per min. The condition cleared up in two days after the use of “Bimple remedies”. Inquiry elicited the fact that each of the past 9 or 10 attacks had followed immediately on his coming into contact with wool in a raw state. The last attack followed his helping to (‘tread’’ the wool into bales with his bare feet. He gave an allergic response to lanoline from sheep’s wool fat.

In the course of a private investigation, a subject was found who reacted to every coloured garment in her wardrobe, and immediately the subject was dressed in undyed garments the dermatitis cleared up.

An extraordinary case in the United States was reported in 1934lo-“A man, aged 29, was proved by patch tests with the respective articles, all of which gave negative tests on control subjects, to be idiosyncratic to the following-Overcoat, hatband, garters, socks, shoes, bed clothing, automobile upholstery, varnish from mahogany table, linings of two suits, wife’s dresses, and upholstery ofliving-room furniture. Life was only made tolerable to him

by making patch tests of all clothing and upholstery previous to purchase. He gave positive reactions to 11 out of 26 azo dyes, weakly positive to 3 triphenylmethane dyes, and negative to all the other types of dyes tried.”

Sir William Willcox11 in a discussion on a paper by Cox said-“There are physiological variations in the body, one ot which, viz. the menopause, has been mentioned by the Lecturer. It is known that people, at that period of life, become very sensitive to toxins, such as streptococcal poisons, and they are liable to get arthritis a t that time. Also the thyroid re- actions are altered. There are many physiological changes which would account for the high percentages of cases of dermatitis at that period, a relative hypersensitivity to conditions of auto-intoxication, i.e. toxins absorbed from septic teeth or tonsils; these not only render the body allergic to bacterial toxin#, but also hypersensitivo to chemictlls. That may be one explanation of this curious indik idunl vari- ability.” Also, he said, “If a good case is made out for the claimant the odds are against the vendor for one cannot prove a negative.”

Judge Earengey said-“Dr. Cox has intimated that it would be desirable if the courts decided whether it applied to the person who had hypersensitivity. I do not know of any decision on that point. It was suggested in the case from Australia which went to the Privy Council, but the point was not dealt with because the court thought there was no evidence on which the decision of the Chief Justice could be upset. Therefore, hypersensitivity of the person has never yet been dealt with. But if the obligation is that the substance shall be reasonably fit for the purpose, reasonably must not be left out of consideration. There may be hypersensitivity in a person a t a particular period Nho is usually normal, or what would not harm 999 people might harm the thousandth. I have some reason for thinking that if the matter were properly applied and brought before the court for a direct decision i t might be held that reasonably fit meant just what it says, that damages would not lie in the case of damage in a person sensitive to an extraordinary degree.”

Defence of a case involves the considcratiori of many factors. Many cases niay be settled out of court for a trifling sum, with the result that principle is frequently sacrificed to ex- pediency; firms cannot be blamed, however, for so doing, because the defence of a case involves a heavy expenditure, much of which cannot be recovered if the defence is successful.

Another factor which must be considered is the shrinking from publicity. It can be readily understood that a firm which has spent thou- sands of pounds in popularising a branded articlo will hesitate before incurring publicity, even if the claim appears t o be a false one. The firm cannot afford to let a cluccessful claim for

od. 1038 WHITTAKER-“DERMATITI8 ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO WEARING TEXTILES” 453

dermatitis, alleged to arise from the use of its branded article, be given wide publicity without running the risk of a large diminution in its a l e

It must also be remembered that the symptoms of dermatitis are in many instances extremely distressing whatever the exciting cause, so that the sympathy of the Court may be extended to the sufferer. If the case is heard before a local jury, it is -cult for a company with a large capital to fight a mannequin earning €3 per week. Apart from the merits of the case, there is an unconscious bias to say, “Oh ! Give her €280 damages, the X Company has plenty of money!” Again, in the case of a lady claimant, there are limits to the intimate questions that may be asked in open court, but the menopause and menstruation periods are critical periods. Coxs has stated that of 6,000 claims by women for fur dermatitis, 2,600 occurred in the menopause and about 26% of the claimants suffered from seborrhea. Such figures cannot be considered to be merely coincidences, as the proportion is far too heavy. Surely they at least suggest that this period in a woman’s life contributes in a major degree to the possibility of contracting dermatitis.

It may be suggested that firms should have the chemicals and dyes used examined by a dermatologist. One eminent dermatologist, however, holds the opinion that a minimum of 200 subjects submitted to the patch test are required, whilst he would much prefer 1,OOO subjects. If this is multiplied by the number of dyes, chemicals, and auxiliary agents in use, it will be realissd that such work undertaken by the leading dermatologists of this country would take years to complete, quite apart from the expense involved. The result in 1,OOO subjects might well be negative, yet some unknown wearer may prove idiosyncratic to it at some period of her life. There does not seem to be any rational and practicable precaution which textile interests can take in order to free them from claims arising out of the dermatitis menace.

One learned judge has suggested that “we should contract out”. This, however, is im- practicable. How can every draper’s assistant be expected, in every sale he or she makes, to persuade the customer to agree to contracting out of the Sales of Goods Act ?

It is true that firms may insure against claims, but that must not prevent those concerned from endeavouring to remove what is considered, by textile interests, to be an injustice .

REBERENOES 1 Adamson, British Jour. of Dermdology, 1937, 49, 435.

a Barritt, J . Textile Inat., 1935, 26, T87. 4Brown, Britiah J a r . of Dermatology, 1937, 49, 353. &Cox, The Medico-Legal and Criminological Review,

6 Evelyn, John Evelyn’s Diary. Entry on 5th August,

Auetdian Law Reporta (Appeal Caaea), 1936. ‘

1837, p. 14.

1670.

7 Hertelet, South A f r h n Medical Jour., 1934. 8, 182. 81ngram, Lancet. 1936, 229, 239.

Jour. of the American Medical Asaocn., 1934, p. 127.

Wilcox, The Medico-Legal and Criminologicul RePn’ew, ‘OKillick and Ingram, ibid., 1933, 77 .

1937.

DISOUSSION (WEST RIDING SECTION) Mr. A. J. Crockatt asked whether the Lecturer

knew anything about the procedure adopted by analysts in testing for paminophenol ? He wondered if they rigidly excluded the hundred and one things which might upset a straight test for such a compound, and whether textiles were extracted with plain water or with hydro- chloric acid before the tests were applied.

The Lecturer said that, in cases of which he had had a transcript of the evidence, Counsel had not been instructed properly. In one case, the expert based his assertion that p-amino- phenol waa present in the material under examination, on the formation of crystals resembling this compound in the aqueous extract; this evidence was accepted, although two other analysts had obtained negative results. In future, Counsel would be properly instructed, so that analysts could be cross- examined as to how they had determined the results of their analyses.

Mr. J. F. Copley said that having regard to the number of dermatitis claims in connexion with fur dyes, it might be thought that these particular dyes were irritants to a proportion of the population. Unfortunately, defective dye- ings on furs might easily prejudice the public against all dyes. Fur dyes should be regarded as a distinct class so far as the hazard to health W&B concerned.

“he Lecturer said that it was possible to have a dermatitis claim from wearing white furs; in this case, it was a question of friction.

Mr. F. Smith asked whether the points raised had any bearing on what was known as scourer’s itch which was well-known in the Bradford district ?

The Lecturer said that all alkalis were classed as irritants, but there was always a question of idiosyncrasy. If the individual were susceptible and the alkali were strong enough, a dermatitis was almost certain to develop.

Mr. S. L. Peel asked whether it had been found that idiosyncrasy affected families as well as individuals Z

The Lecturer said that, according to Dr. MacCormac, dermatitis was not contagious. There was no danger for instance in a person using a towel that had been used by a patient suffering from dermatitis.

Dr. R. C. Storey said that he thought the analyst ought to be defended in some way. In one case, he knew that p-phenylenediamine had been confirmed by conversion to its acetyl derivative.

The Lecturer said that the analyst, in making out a certificate, should confine himself to

454 BLAKELEY-“DYEING DIFFICULTIEB AND FAULTS” Ocl. 1938

stating whether he had obtained a positive or a nogative result; if he wished to express a medical opinion, he should do it in a covering letter.

Mr. A. J. Crockatt asked whether, in con- sidering the logal position, the Committee on Alleged Dermatitis could hold out any hope of improvement of the present situation 1 His firm would not care to defend any case because of the publicity that would arise.

The Lecturer said that it was an extra- ordinarily difficult position. Counsel consulted by the Committee on Alleged Dermatitis, viz. Mr. James Whitehead, K.C., had told them that the only way to reach security was to get a decision in a Second Court or in the House of Lords, so that instead of the Judges in the Court of First Instances giving five different opinions, they would be bound to give one. Every law case undertaken by t,he Committee now was balanced on a razor odge. If they could get a decision in R Higher Court that idioflyncrasy

was a defence, it would frighten off the specu- lative litigant. . Mr. H. H. Bowen said that it WRH unfortunate that, although hundreds of people could wear certain garments without ill-effects, there might be special cases of idiosyncrasy in which illness might arise. Bradford Club in which a member of the trade said that he could cause the development of dermatitis in 24 hr. A doctor who was present said that such a result was impossible, but the member in question said that he had produced i t simply by drinking Benedictine after dinner. He knew of another case in which certain dresses which were worn with a fur coat caused dermatitis, whereas other dresses which were not worn with the fur coat had no effect. Also, he knew of another case, in which two sisters, who had bought a woollen fabric containing rabbit hair a t different shops, developed dermatitis, owing, no doubt, to the high sensitivity of their skins.

He recalled a discussion in

MANCHESTER SECTION Meeting held in the Lecture Hall of the Literary and Philosophical Society, on 8th April 1938,

Mr. N. CHAPPEU in the chair.

Symposium-Dyeing Difficulties and Faults A series of four short papers on various

aspects of difficulties and faults encountered in modern dyeing technique was contributed by

the following representatives of the industry- Mr. J. D. Blakeley, Mr. C. Child, Mr. H. Heap, and Mr. R . Humphries.

I-Dyeing Difficulties and Faults (A) J. D. BLAKELEY

Some of the difficulties and faults met with in normal dyeing practice are illustrated by the following examples-( 1) Yarns for electrical in- sulation work need to be free from inorganic salts, but as direct dyes do not dye readily in the absence of salt and it is found that it is not easy to eliminate it from the yarn without removing some of the dye, especially in the case of dark shades. (2) Sometimes it is found that azoic dyeings on cotton yarns will not absorb size. A similar effect has been noted with viscose rayon from which salt used in dyeing has not been removed completely. Apparently there is a saturation point with fibres, but does this mean that there is some sort of affinity between the fibre and the starch, and that this “affinity” can be satu- rated with dye or salt ‘2 (3) The variation in shade of azoic dyeing8 has been mentioned before. Fast Red B Base + Naphtol AS-TR gives a yellowish-red, but the shade is bluer with Naphtol AS-BO. A mixture of these two Naphtols, therefore, should give a shade which is intermediate between the two, but the actual shade is yellower than either. (4) Some viscose

rayon yarn was dyed with Indanthrene Orange F3R and Red FBB. The dyeing waB finished late at night, so the yarn wa8 taken from the dyebath and suspended in cold water overnight. In the morning, all the hanks were badly ten- dered. ( 5 ) In dyeing yarn with vat dyes, a hank is taken out, oxidised and “patterned up”. The hank is then put back with the set, more dye added to the bath and dyeing continued. Why does the added dye tend to be absorbed more by the pattern hank than the remainder of the sot ? (6) Some grey cloth containing stripes dyed with an azoic black, was mercerised and bleached. The finished cloth had a definite yellow appoar- ance which could not be removed by chemicking, but was removed easily by soaping. The fault was traced to fatty matter in the finish which had diasolved some of the azoic dye and caused i t to spread. (7) Cotton cloth with heavily coloured stripes was coated with rubber on one side and made into a bag. Most of the stripe colours were pale, but there were also two vat dyeings, viz. a dark-brown and a black, and it was found that the rubber in contact with these