Product Liability Flashcards
first time liability in negligence of a manufacturer for damage caused by his product
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
common law: lack of inspection of the product- success for the claimant
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]
common law: defect occurred outside manufacturer’s control
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass [1936]
Why was the CPA 1987 passed?
in response to a EU Directive of 1985
How would yo describe liability under the CPA?
doesn’t depend on proof of fault; is not absolute
blood products are covered by the Act
A v National Blood Authority [2001]
What is a product? Which section of the Act?
s.1(2)
What must be proved by the claimant under s.3?
the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect
What is the ‘consumer expectation test’?
objective standard applied to the question of defect
manufacturer failed the consumer expectation test
Abouzaid v Mothercare [2001]
balancing risk and benefit- coffee must be hot, yet must be served in a safe cup
Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants [2002]
child-resistant lid achieved the customer expectation standard despite not quiet achieving the British Standard for Safety
Pollard v Tesco Stores [2006]
a constellation of factors had combined to lead to the fracture of the prosthesis
Wilkes [2016]; Gee [2018]
What else is necessary for a liability despite proof of defect?
a causal link between defect and damage
when is compensation not available?
s.5- damage to the product itself
damage to property not ordinarily intended for private use and indented by the claimant for that purpose
damage to property totaling less than £275
What are the defences under the act- s.4?
-Defect is attributable to compliance with any EU obligation
-D did not supply the product
-Supply was not in the course of business
-Defect did not exist at the relevant time- Piper [2006]
-The development of risks defence- the producer might not have been expected to discover the defect
-Defect is wholly attributable to the design
warnings on products may be effective in discharging liability
Kubach [1937]
claimant must prove that defect is the cause of the harm
Foster v Biosil [2001]
if defect did not exist at the time of supply then the manufacturer has a defence
Piper [2006]
regarding the relevant state of scientific knowledge- s.4 (1) (e) CPA’s wording is in line with directive- subjective v objective discussion
EC Commission v UK [1997]
