Unit 7 Flashcards
What are two causes of action for defective products?
The Tort of negligence
Under the CPA 1987.
Also contract law.
Case law regarding fury of care for defective products:
Donoghue v Stevenson:
It established the neighbour principle (the wide rule) and a specific duty of care for manufactures (narrow rule).
The claimant must establish that:
- the defendant is a manufacturer
- the item causing damage is a product
- the claimant is a consumer and
- the product reached the consumer in the form in which it left the manufacturer with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
Who is a manufacturer?
It is interpreted widely by the courts extending beyond those who originally created the product. For example, repairs installers and suppliers of products.
Andrew’s v Hopkins:
Suppliers can be held liable if they should inspect the goods or if they have actual knowledge of a defect.
What is a product?
It covers virtually any item capable of causing damage. Includes items supplied with the product like packaging containers, labels and instructions.
Eg the toaster and the packaging it came in are both considered products.
Who is a consumer?
Includes the ultimate user and anyone the manufacturer should reasonably perceiving injured by their negligence.
What is the scope of the duty owed by manufacturers?
Murphy v Brentwood district council:
Covers injury to Parsons and damage to property caused by the defect. Does not cover pure economic loss like defective products reduced value or repair costs.
What is the complex structure theory?
Damage caused by a defective component to the rest of the product is consequential damage not pure economic loss. The cost of the defective component itself remains pure economic loss.
Breach of duty:
The standard of care is that of a reasonable manufacturer. Manufacturers can discharge their duty by providing adequate warnings.
Cause
If there is a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, then the manufacturer will not owe a duty under the narrow rule.
A mere opportunity or possibility of intermediate examination will not be enough to exonerate manufacturers. They must believe there is a likelihood of such an examination taking place.
Who must prove the duty was breached?
As usual, the claimant. This is difficult due to lack of knowledge of manufacturing processes.
Need to show there is a problem with manufacturing; the manufacturer only needs to show reasonable care.
Is res ipsa loquitor allowed?
No. Because it was stated obiter in donoghue. However they can make inferences by proving certain facts. The courts will infer breach against rebutted by defendant.
Causation and remoteness test:
Usual. But for test. There must be a causal link so the breach must have caused the claimants loss. Courts consider intervening acts and remoteness.
Can contributory negligence be used in defective product cases?
Yes. In product liability examples might involve the claimant ignoring clear warnings misusing the product or failing to take reasonable steps to protect themselves.
Who can sue under the CPA 1987?
Section 2(1) allows anyone who suffers damages caused by a defective product to sue.
How is damage defined in s5 of the CPA?
Claims for death or personal injury are unlimited
Property damage to private property is recoverable if it exceeds £275
Damage to business property dxcluded
Damage to the defective product are PEL.
Causation in the CPA:
The defect must cause the damage. The but for test applies.
Remoteness may not apply but if it does, the more onerous direct consequences of Re Polemis would apply.
Defect under CPA:
Exists when the products safety is not what persons are generally entitled to expect.
Factors to consider are the presentation, the expected use and age of the product.
Nature of liability under CPA:
Strict liability - claimants only need to prove damage caused by a defect. No need to prove fault or negligence.
A v National Blood Authority - the defendant was liable despite the defect being unavoidable. Consumer expectations are a huge consideration. VERY CONSUMER FRIENDLY.
Product under CPA:
Goods, components, electricity and raw materials. Blood is also a product of
Who can be liable under CPA?
Producer: the manufacturer of the product
Own-brander: someone who puts their name on another product
Importer: someone who imports a product from outside the EU
Forgetful supplier : a supplier is liable only if they failed to identify other parties in the supply chain when requested by a victim.
Why is the CPA 1987 so significant?
It moved the law relating to defective products away from having to prove negligence to a strict liability regime.
What are the possible defences to CPA, once defect causation and damage have been established? COMPLETE DEFENSES.
Compliance with legal requirements: if the defect was an inevitable result of complying with legal requirements.
Non-supply to another: the D did not supply the product to another person.
Non-business supply: the D supplied the product outside the course of their business. Like to a friend.
Defect did not exist at supply: the defect arose after the defendant supplied the product
Component Manufacturers defense: not liable if the defect is solely due to the design or instructions of the final product manufacturer.
Development risks: the D must prove that the defect was undiscovered given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of supply. This is a controversial defence and encourages innovation but only to unforseeable risks (A v national blood authority).
PARTIAL DEFENSES TO CPA:
Contributory negligence: a partial defense reducing damages if the claimant contributed to their own loss.
