Product Liability- 15 Flashcards
what is product liability concerned with?
when a product causes you personal injury i.e causes a burn or a skin condition–>you will not cover the cost for the item but you may claim compensation for the injury.
formula for product liability question
duty
breach
causation
remedy
DOC- leading common law case?
Donoghue V Stevenson 1932
DOC- Stennett v hancock
the D repaired a lorry but a part flew off one of the wheels and injured a passer-by = D liable in negligence
DOC- Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd [1941
case about the lift= claiming for the injury suffered not recover of product price
Breach of duty
claimant = BOP that there has been a breach of duty
Breach of Duty- • Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]
Grant purchased underwear that injured him, due to sulphur inside the underwear. All other underwear’s produced by the same manufacturer didn’t have sulphur. Judge said the presence of sulphur was hidden and couldn’t be seen on inspection before consumption. Despite having good quality control mechanisms, the judge reasoned that negligence could be inferred. C is not required to show what went wrong in the manufacturing process, therefore, he was allowed to recover compensation for the skin rash.
Breach of duty–Evans V Triplex Safety glass
c brought a car whcih had been fitted with a windscreen. C= injured when the windscreen shattered while he was driving.
manufactures of the windscreen= not liable= too much time lapsed between manufacture of the window and the accident. windscreen had been fitted a year earlier by a different company
-breach? need to prove the windscreen manufacturers responsibility
-could not prove this since it could be due to the way it was fitted or the maintenance.
liability under the CPA 1987
- Strict liability= seeks to make manufacturers of a product liable without proof of fault.
cannot claim for:
-loss or damage to the product itself.
-damage to business property not ordinarily intended for private use
-property damage valued under £275
Worsely v Tambrands [2000] PIQR 164
-Allegation that defective tampons resulted in TSS (toxic shock syndrome)
• She said the labels may have been defective ie not instructed on how to use it
• Damage for personal injury from damage caused by product
• She said the warning of TSS provided by the manufacturer were not adequate.
• However warnings were on the enclosed leaflet
• She failed in successfully bringing this case because she chose not to read the information
• Just because she didn’t remember the information or chose not to read the enclosed information
• A woman in her situation is reasonably expected to read the information
- Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000] PIQR 164
- Contraception was not expected to be perfectly effective
- Claimed the condom was not effective
- She got pregnant and wanted to claim
- Saying had it not been defective she would not have gotten pregnant
- Failed= manufacturer never claimed to be 100% effective
Abouzaid v Mothercare TLR, 20 February 2001
- Child trying to attach sleeping bag to the back of a pushchair (manufactured by mother care)
- As he fastens it, it springs back into his eye
- Severe consequences of injury indicated that the product was defective – CPA applies a strict standard.
- Something must have gone wrong with the product for this level of injury to occur.
- What is the safety level the public is likely to expect- given the severe injury= claim successful
Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd [2002]
- Safety of the hot drinks served by McDonald’s was such as persons generally are entitled to expect
- Court dismissed a group action in relation to personal injury caused by hot drinks.
- They said customers would expect basic precaution be taken against such risks but that cannot be to the point to deny the basic utility of drinks
- Case failed= court satisfied that the drink is what public would expect
Pollard v Tesco Stores [2006]
- Dishwasher powder with a child resistant cap.
- Child resistant closure cap which was less safe than that specified in the British Standard certificate was not defective= because they said the public were only entitled to expect that the bottle would be more difficult to open than if it was an ordinary screw cap.
= no breach of 1987 act
Baker v KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd [2017]
- Looks at motorcycle
- Mr baker sued a manufacturer of the motorcycle he was riding
- He said he was driving along a road within the speed limit when suddenly without warning the front brake of the motorcycle seized causing him to be thrown of the motor cycle = suffered sever injury as a result
- He claimed brake failed so that’s the manufacturers fault and sued
- He argued that there was a design defect and fault construction of bike.
- Use section3 of the CPA – did the public generally expect this and looked ta expert evidence
- How much detail is required by the claimant to claim defect.
- No need for Mr Baker to plead and proof a specific design or manufacture defect
- You do not need to show how defect was caused. It is sufficient to find that THERE IS defect.
judgement: task of the court is simply to determine whether the loss was caused by the defect and not by another cause.
