Product Liability Flashcards
1
Q
Donoghue v Stevenson
A
established that there could be circumstances where a manufacturer could be liable for a defective product
2
Q
Stennett v Hancock
A
- liability for manufacturing defects can be extended to people who repair products
- Lorry was negligently repaired
- Wheel flew off and injured someone
- Person who made repair was liable*
3
Q
Brown v Cotterill
A
- liability for manufacturing defects extends to installers
- Defendant negligently erected a tombstone which fell over and injured a child
4
Q
Kubach v Hollands
A
- liability for manufacturing defects extends to suppliers
- A manufacturer produced a chemical in a packet called manganese dioxide
- Packet contained a mixture of chemicals which were dangerous when put together
- Manufacturer specifically warned seller to test its contents
- Seller failed to do this
- Pupil injured when the product exploded
- Supplier liable
5
Q
Wright v AIB
A
- liability for design defects is found when designed in a negligent manner
- A harvester was designed with an access panel whereby users could access the inside of the machine
- Access panel was very close to the moving paddles
- P’s hand was crushed when trying to remove grass
- Deemed design was negligent
6
Q
Cekanova v Dunnes Stores
A
- Duty to warn consumers of dangers, however not when obvious
- Man bought glass jug
- Used jug to make tea
- Boiled water
- Let it cool
- Jug exploded
- COA held that normal adults of reasonable intelligence would know not to put boiling water into a glass object
7
Q
Wright v Dunlop Rubber
A
Duty to warn includes duty to recall products if necessary
8
Q
KRONE
A
- defined product
- CJEU held the Product Liability Directive was confined to tangible items and no liability arose
9
Q
Boston Scientific
A
- ECJ held that damage would include the cost of surgery associated with removing potentially defective pacemakers and implantable cardio inverter defibrillators from patients
- ECJ concluded that damage for these purposes had to be interpreted a ‘damage caused by a surgical operation for the replacement of a defective product, if such an operation is necessary to overcome the defect in the product’
10
Q
Busby v Berkshire Bed Co
A
- Claimant was paralyzed after falling from newly purchased bed while having sexual intercourse with her partner
- Transpired that the bed was uneven because it was missing parts
- Defectively installed by the deliverymen or the producer?
- Court held it was the producer
- However ultimately failed on causation grounds
When goods are branded as their own, then you are a producer
11
Q
Wilkes v Depuy International
A
The Directive’s aims is to ‘solve the problem, peculiar to our age of increasing technicality, of a fair apportionment of the risks inherent in modern technological production’
12
Q
Tesco v CFp
A
- 13 month old claimant swallowed dishwasher tablet
- Argued it was too easily opened
- Lid was not childproof
- Court found that while the lid on the bottle did not meet the British standards, the public were only entitled to expect that such caps were more difficult to unscrew than ordinary caps
- No breach
13
Q
Bogle v McDonalds
A
- Claimants suffered burns as a result of spillages from coffee purchased from defendant’s restaurant
- Alleged the defect was the coffee being served too hot
Held that consumer knows that the coffee will be hot
14
Q
Richardson v LRC Products
A
- Condom burst during sexual intercourse
- Court held that everybody knows that it is not a 100% effective form of contraception
- Such a warning was on the packaging
15
Q
Dineen v DePuy
A
- In determining whether a standard product is defective, the court may compare it with competing products
- Argued that hip replacement was defective in its design
- ‘metal on metal’ joint led to wear and tear which increased ion levels in her blood
- Damage to bones as a result
- Court looked at competitors
- Much higher failure rate than competitors
- Held that this was a defective products
16
Q
Baker v KTM
A
- Claimant was injured after the break on a second-hand motorbike seized without warning
- It had been fully serviced and cared for and was less than two years old
- Held the motorbike was defective as other motorbikes of that age would not have had that same failure
17
Q
Worsley v Tambrands
A
- P suffered toxic shock syndrome as a result of using the defendant’s tampons
- No liability attached to the defendants
- Labelled on box
- Argument was that warnings were small print and on a multilingual leaflet
- Court disagreed
- No liability as there was warnings
18
Q
Abouzaid v Mothercare
A
- Claimant was 12 year old boy who was injured when the buckle at the end of elastic fastening on a sleeping bag attachment to a child’s buggy snapped and struck him in the eye
- Held defective as the danger was not obvious
19
Q
NW v Sanofi
A
- W had received a vaccine for Hepatitis B produced by Sanofi
- W developed MS
- No history in family of MS
- Short time period since vaccine
- Held that the burden of proof remained with the injured party
