Product Liability Flashcards
What did Aswan Engineering v Lupdine Ltd generally tell us about product liability?
No liability when water damage to stacked plastic containers occurred in extreme heat. Liability only when product is unsuited for its INTENDED use.
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part I
Implements strict liability for defective products causing personal injury, death, or property damage.
What is the case that tells us how to go about manufacturing defects, which are usually non-standard products?
in A v National Blood Authority, Justice Burton says: Just because a product is non standard, doesn’t automatically make it defective. no liability if: Public at large accepted that a proportion of products of the same type will be flawed + Social acceptance of risk that product being flawed. Subjective critera
What does Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd say about design defects/standard products?
Apply the general test in s3(1), and conduct a risk v benefit analysis, looking at practicabillity, cost, and risk mitigation.
What is the general test in s3(1)
what the public is entitled to expect (objective)
Hip replacement cases, Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics
Damage can materialse long after defective hip installed, still actionable
What about marketing defects?
s3(2)a:
positive marketing - eg/ safe for kids when it is not, actionable
Failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions in relation to danger (negative)
Both are actionable. Still grounded in what public is entitled to expect
Donoghue v Stevenson relevance to product liability?
Sets up the basic duty of care in product liability.
How Grant v Australian Knitting Mills confirm the scope of product liability duties.
Shows that duty includes care in manufacturing processes, and defects don’t have to be obvious. manufacturer negligent for failing to remove a chemical irritant from the underwear, leading to Grant’s dermatitis.
How did Hobbs (Farms) Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co illustrate the type of damage?
Need physical damage to person or property, not just economic loss.
How did Carroll v Fearon clarify donoghue?
Donoghue applies even where the product isn’t inherently dangerous, if it becomes dangerous due to a defect.
What does duty extend to in Barcardi-Martini v Thomas Hardy Packaging?
Shows duty of care extends to those involved in packaging/filling, not just original manufacturers.
What did Finesse Group v Bryson Product say about scope of duty?
Emphasises reasonable care in quality control, especially for parts/components supplied for further manufacturing.
What about safety in Abouzaid v Mothercare?
Even with normal use and good intentions, if the safety expectation isn’t met, it’s defective.
How do we reconcile Bogle with Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants?
Bogle: People expect coffee to be hot; danger was obvious; no failure in safety expectation.
Liebeck: McDonald’s had hundreds of prior complaints. Jury found negligence and recklessness.
What does O’Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd say about multiple defendants?
Multiple defendants - can proceed, but must reasonably identify a liable party.
Safety expectations in Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd?
Child opened a child-resistant cap, ingested cleaning fluid. Cap was not impossible to open — just met the technical safety standard. Held not defective — the product wasn’t less safe than the public expects, given how these caps are known to work.
