Statutes and Delictual Liability Flashcards
2 key statutes?
- Consumer Protection Act 1987
- Occupiers’ Liability (S) Act 1960
What is the strict liability essence of the CPA 1987? Who can it apply to?
If a defect has caused harm, defender will be liable.
- producer, trademark user, supplier (occasionally)
A v National Blood Authority.
- contaminated blood transfusions - Hep B
- no defence of state of scientific knowledge
- reasonable consumer would expect that when receiving blood, it would be safe
- NBA were liable
Richardson v LRC Products Ltd
- unreasonable for consumer to expect 100% effectiveness of condom
- good (condom) did not fall below expected standard
- no liability
Tesco v Pollard
- consumer expectations couldn’t be determined by technical details of safety standards as these were not in public domain
- good (detergent) did meet relevant safety standards under Act
- action failed
Worsley v Tambrands Ltd
- TSS - argued product and instructions were inadequate
- the product was not unsafe or defective in terms of the Act
- no liability
How must damage be caused for liability to arise?
s2(3) 1987 Act.
“caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product”
- direct causal link between defect and ultimate damage
Defences to product liability?
- UK statutory or EC regulations
- defender did not supply product
- goods not supplied in course of business
- defective did not exist at relevant time
- scientific/technical knowledge
McDyer v Celtic FC
- injured by falling object in stadium
- res ipsa loquitur doctrine successfully argued and applied
res ipsa loquitur
Mere occurences of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence.
Telfer v Glasgow Corporation
- Held that Co-op still had authority at time of sale
- deemed occupiers as they still had keys and control over security of premises
Haggarty v Glasgow Corporation
- lease made Glasgow Corp liable for repairs so they were liable for any injuries under the Act
Extent of standard of care expected of occupier?
No absolute strict liability.
- reasonable standard
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
- adult diving in lake despite swimming prohibition
- no liability
- claimant chose to engage in dangerous activity
Bermingham v Sher Brothers
- seven firemen killed
- OL duty extends to firefirefighters
- not expected to forsee how a fire woulde develop/be fought