The Carbolic Smoke Ball was an early purpose-made dry powder inhalation device whose promotion led to a landmark court case which established an important principle of English law. The Carbolic Smoke Ball was patented in England in 1889 by a Frederick Augustus Roe, as a ‘device to facilitate the distribution, inhalation, and application of medicated powders’ [1], although in some of its promotional literature it was described as ‘a new American remedy’ (Figure 1). The original patent describes ‘a composite hollow ball or receptacle of india rubber ... having an orifice provided with a porous or perforated disc or diaphragm ... through which when the ball or receptacle is compressed, the powder will be forced in a cloud of infinitesimally small particles resembling smoke’. It appears from trade catalogues that two different forms were marketed. The author has in his possession a version which is a rounded ball-shaped vessel with a flattened bottom and short neck, black in appearance, but actually made from very dark green glass. The smoke ball’s contents were composed of a mixture of glycyrrhiza and white hellebore (Veratrum vide) together with a tarry residue that provided the odour of carbolic acid [2]; carbolic inhalations had become fashionable for the treatment of various chest ailments, including tuberculosis, since Lister’s development of a carbolic acid spray to prevent sepsis following surgery [3]. It was promoted by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of Hanover Square, London, as a positive cure for a variety of respiratory tract ailments including colds, hay fever, catarrh, asthma, bronchitis, and influenza – as well as neuralgia and headache. The cost of each device was 10 shillings (£0.50); it could be refilled for a further 5 shillings. It was stated to be used by a wide section of the titled classes, as well as the actors Henry Irving and Ellen Terry. It was an advertisement in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1891 which led to the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s appearance in court [4]. The advertisement in question differed from that illustrated here, in offering a reward of £100 to any person contracting influenza or a cold after having used the Carbolic Smoke Ball according to the printed directions. Mrs Carlill (often misprinted Carhill or Cahill) purchased and used a smoke ball as directed, but contracted influenza nonetheless. Her husband (a solicitor by training) requested the advertised compensation of £100 on her behalf, but was ignored by the manufacturers, so sued them. The case (Carlill vs The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company) came to court in 1892, in which year advertisements containing the £100 offer were still appearing in the national press (for example, The Graphic) [2]. The defence argued variously that the claim was a bet within the meaning of the Gaming Act; that the offer was merely
Read full abstract