Product Liability Flashcards
What are the three areas of law relevant to claims for defective products, and when is tort law preferred?
- Tort of negligence: Preferred when the claimant is not the buyer or when contract law is unavailable.
- Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987: Provides statutory strict liability for defective products.
- Contract law: Limited to cases where:
- The claimant is a party to the contract.
- The claimant has third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
Example: Tort law is often used if the supplier is out of business or the claimant is harmed by a product they received as a gift.
What must a claimant prove to establish a negligence claim for defective products?
- Duty of care: The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.
- Breach of duty: The defendant failed to take reasonable care.
- Causation: The breach caused the harm (using the “but for” test).
- Remoteness: The harm was reasonably foreseeable.
Case Example: In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), a manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer who became ill after consuming a ginger beer containing a dead snail.
What are the four elements required to establish a duty of care under the narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
- The defendant is a ‘manufacturer’.
- The item is a ‘product’.
- The claimant is a ‘consumer’.
- The product reached the consumer without a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
Example: In Donoghue v Stevenson, the sealed bottle of ginger beer met the criteria for intermediate examination, making the manufacturer liable.
How is the term ‘manufacturer’ defined broadly under the narrow rule, and who may fall under this category?
A manufacturer includes:
1. Repairers (e.g., Haseldine v Daw & Son Ltd [1941] – faulty lift repair).
2. Installers (e.g., Stennett v Hancock [1939] – defective truck wheels).
3. Suppliers if:
* They should reasonably test or inspect products.
* They know of a defect/danger (e.g., Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] – car supplier liable for defective steering).
Example: A local garage servicing a car or a heating engineer installing a boiler would be considered manufacturers under this rule.
What qualifies as a ‘product’ under the narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
A product includes any item capable of causing harm, including:
- Consumables (e.g., ginger beer).
- Non-consumables (e.g., cars, machinery).
- Items associated with the product (e.g., packaging, labels, instructions).
Case Example: Mislabeled chemicals used in a school experiment (Kubach v Hollands [1937]) were considered products.
How does the concept of intermediate examination affect liability under the narrow rule?
A manufacturer is not liable if:
1. There was a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
- The defect should have been identified.
Case Examples:
* Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): A sealed, opaque bottle of ginger beer precluded intermediate examination.
* Kubach v Hollands (1937): A chemical provided with explicit warnings escaped manufacturer liability because an intermediate test was expected.
Who qualifies as a ‘consumer’ under the narrow rule, and what are examples of eligible claimants?
A consumer includes:
1. The end-user of the product.
2. Anyone reasonably foreseeable as being harmed by the product.
Example: In a car accident caused by defective brakes:
* Passengers (Pamela and Sandra).
* Pedestrians (William).
* Property owners (Jennifer).
All qualify as consumers under Donoghue v Stevenson’s neighbor principle.
What types of losses are recoverable under Donoghue v Stevenson’s narrow rule?
- Recoverable: Injuries to persons and damage to property other than the defective product.
- Not recoverable: Pure economic loss, such as:
* Replacing the defective product.
* Cost of repairing the defect.
Example: Amanda’s kitchen curtains (property damage) and burns (injury) are recoverable, but replacing the toaster (pure economic loss) is not.
How can a claimant prove a breach of duty in defective product cases?
- Evidence of lack of reasonable care in the manufacturing process.
- Courts may infer breach if defects are unexplained (e.g., Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] – dermatitis caused by sulphur in underwear).
- Proof must eliminate alternative causes.
Example: In Daniels v R White & Sons (1938), the claimant failed to prove breach despite the presence of carbolic acid in lemonade because no specific negligence was identified
What defenses can manufacturers use in defective product claims?
- Consent (volenti non fit injuria): The claimant knowingly accepted the risk.
- Exclusion of liability:
* Not valid for death or personal injury under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) or Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). - Contributory negligence: The claimant’s own actions contributed to the harm.
Example: Mike continued to use a hammer with a loose head and was injured. His damages may be reduced due to contributory negligence.
How does causation and remoteness apply in product liability cases?
- Causation: The breach must be the actual cause of harm (using the “but for” test).
- Remoteness: The harm must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence (The Wagon Mound test).
Case Example:
* In Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd (1936), causation failed because the windscreen shattered 12 months after installation, and no link was established to the manufacturer’s negligence.
How can the standard of care for manufacturers vary based on circumstances?
Factors affecting the standard include:
1. Magnitude of foreseeable risk.
2. Gravity of potential injury.
3. Cost and practicality of precautions.
Example: A reasonable hydraulic engineer or ginger beer manufacturer must meet industry standards of care to avoid liability.
Who can sue under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and how does this differ from negligence claims?
Under the CPA 1987, anyone who can establish:
1. Damage (death, personal injury, or property damage exceeding £275).
2. Caused by a defect.
3. In a product.
Key Differences from Negligence:
- The claimant does not need to be the buyer, direct user, or foreseeable victim.
- Class of claimants is broader, including bystanders or anyone injured by the defective product.
Example: A pedestrian injured by a lawnmower explosion (without using or owning the product) can sue under the CPA 1987.
What types of damage are recoverable under the CPA 1987?
- Personal Injury (unlimited): Includes any disease or impairment of physical/mental health.
- Private Property Damage: Recoverable if it exceeds £275.
- Exclusions:
* Damage to business property.
* Pure economic loss (e.g., cost of replacing the defective product).
Case Example:
* Clive’s antique clock is recoverable as private property damage exceeding £275.
- His business-use computer and the defective television (pure economic loss) are not recoverable under the CPA 1987.
How is causation established under the CPA 1987, and how does it differ from negligence?
The claimant must prove the defect caused the damage, applying the ‘but for’ test.
Differences from Negligence:
* Negligence focuses on proving a breach of duty.
* CPA 1987 emphasizes the defect’s role, not the fault of the defendant.
* Remoteness may be governed by the direct consequences test (Re Polemis) rather than the Wagon Mound test in negligence.
Case Example:
* In Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd (1936), causation failed in negligence after a windscreen shattered 12 months later. Under the CPA 1987, causation would still need proof but focuses on the defect rather than breach.
