Tort - Product Liability Flashcards
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
Manufacturer must intend goods to reach end consumer in state left him in, without possibility of intermediate examination.
No warning to consumer?
Reasonable for someone else to check?
Donoghue v Stevenson
Lord Atkin “a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in qhich ey left hin with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination … owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care”
Walton v British Leyland
Duty of manufacturers is a continuing one.
If becomes aware, may be necessary to issue warnings or recall.
Hamble Fisheries v Gardner
Obiter
A duty might apply ro a successor to the manufacturer who discovers a defect that might affect the original production run.
Hollis v Down Corning Corporation
Manufacturer negligent for failing to recall products (risk of rupture 0.1% but enough!)
Thalidomide example
Tests done at time drug developed were the necessary and proper ones in light of scientific knowledge at the time.
“state of art” argument - C has to prove that manufacturer ought to have been aware of the problem and ought to have taken action to avoid defect.
Abouzaid v Mothercare
Strict approach adopted by courts.
Safety held not what would generally expect.
Irrelevant of manufacturer’s lack of knowledge.
From consumers point of view.
X v Shehring ?? Check
Evidence of causation important.
In this case was not any.
A v National Blood Authority
Meaning of defective discussed.
Contamination of blood
No ability to screen but aware of risk.
Would have undermined idea by taking precautions into CPA if found liable.
Customer focused.
Approach
Contract best remedy CPA - applies? Producer s2? Who C/D? Consider defect in widest terms s3 Losses s5 Defences If no remedy (even for a component) consider common law negligence.
