Product Liability Flashcards
Directive 85/374
Set a uniform standard for product liability across the EU with strict liability. Primary aims were to prevent distortion in competition etc. likely to arise from different product liability regimes in different MS.
Consumer Protection Act 1987
Introduced the principle of strict liability for D with defective products - so damage suffered by C due to D’s negligence in producing products falls under a special liability regime, not D v S/general negligence
Product Liability Claim Under Consumer Protection Act 1987
Four requirements that C must prove in order to make a successful product liability claim:
1) Demonstrate who the producer was
2) Demonstrate that there was a ‘product’ purchased
3) Show that the product was defective
4) Prove damage accrued from the defective product
s.1(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987
s.1(2) defines producer - producer includes any person who has manufactured, abstracted the good
A v National Blood Authority - Producer
It is clear that producers are not limited to commercial producers or profit-based - D was the National Blood Authority here and was held to be liable
s.1(2)(c) Consumer Protection Act 1987
s.1(2)(c) defines product - product means any goods or electricity
Note that product can include anything that is manufactured, won, or abstracted - so broad definition
s.3(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987
s.3(1) sets out the basic statutory test for a defective product - is the safety of the product such that persons are generally entitled to expect?
s.(3)(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987
Following circumstances should be taken into account when assessing what the safety persons are generally entitled to expect is
- the manner and way the product is marketed
- what might reasonably be expected to be done with the product
- the time when the product was supplied by its producer to the consumer
A v National Blood Authority
Issue - is blood infected with hepatitis C a defective product under the 1987 Act? Court held yes, defective blood constitutes a defective product under the Act, and D is strictly liable for this.
Burton J introduced the distinction between standard and non-standard products. Standard products are those which meet the standards prescribed by the manufacturer, whereas non-standard products are those which FAIL to meet the standards set by the manufacturer. It is much easier for C to show that the product was defective if the product was non-standard.
Burton J also listed which factors are NOT relevant in assessing defectiveness of products
- Impracticality
- Cost/difficulty of taking precautions
- Impossibility of D eliminating the risk
Abouzaid v Mothercare
Gravity of the potential harm is a relevant factor in assessing whether the product is defective - if the risk of harm presented is more severe, then the product is more likely to be defective
Bogle v McDonalds
Utility of the product IS relevant in assessing whether it is defective - so court needed to take into account the fact that coffee being hot serves a valuable social function. So for coffee, the fact that some safety precautions were taken was sufficient
Pollard v Tesco
s.3 of the 1987 Act is focused on what level of safety persons are generally entitled to expect in the circumstances - so regulatory standards imposed by industry bodies are not relevant on whether the product is defective
s.5(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987
s.5(1) defines damage under the Act - ‘damage means death or personal injury, or any loss/damage of property’
s.45 Consumer Protection Act 1987
Provides further definition of personal injury - it includes any disease or impairment of C’s physical/mental condition - gives wide scope to personal injury
Defences to Product Liability
s.4(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987 sets out defences to product liability claims
