WEEK 10 Flashcards
The Consumer Protection Act 1987
Applies to damaged goods circulated after 1st March 1988 update
Provides an additional statutory remedy along with tort of negligence
Was designed to impose liability on businesses, so does not cover private individuals that are not acting in the course of a business
Potential claimants
Anyone can claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 if…
…they have been injured or have had private property damaged by a defective product
Potential defendants
ss 1 and 2 of the 1987 Act outlines four potential defendants of a defective product:
1 – Producer
2 – Own brander
3 - Importer
4 - Supplie
If there are more than one potential defendants, then the defendants are jointly and severally liable
Causation and Defences
The claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the defective product caused (wholly or partially) the damage suffered
The claimant does not have to prove the producer was at fault when making/supplying the product
If the claimant can provide proof, the defendant will be liable (even if they were not careless in any way), unless they can prove one of the recognised defences:
Valid defences (s4 of the Act)
The defect was caused by complying with a requirement from UK or EU legislation
The defendant did not supply the goods in the course of a business
The defect came about after the time of supply i.e. was interfered with by a third party or the claimant
Given the scientific/technological knowledge at the time, it was reasonable that the defect was not known
Vicarious Liability
This means being liable for the torts of others
Arises because there is a special relationship between the parties
The person who commits the tort is still liable, but where there is vicarious liability, another person is also liable
Often arises in employment situations, where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts committed by employees
Occupiers Liability
When people that enter upon your land, there are statutes that apply to you (as occupiers) regarding their safety
There is a legal distinction between:
visitors (those who have express or implied permission from the occupier to be there), and
non-visitors (such as trespassers)
Liability to Visitors
Covered by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957
An occupier of land owes a common duty of care to all visitors on their premises
The occupier must take such care that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the reason they have been invited there
This takes into the account the behaviour that would be reasonably expected of the visitor
Liability to Non-Visitors
This includes trespassers but also people who have a legal right of way over an occupiers’ land
Occupier’s liability to non-visitors covered by Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Remember, it’s:
1957 Act that covers visitors
1984 Act that covers non-visitors
Duty of care owed to trespassers
There is no automatic duty of care owed to a trespasser
But if a trespasser is injured, a duty of care may still exist if:
1 - The occupier was aware of the danger on the premises, or had reasonable grounds to know it had existed
2 – The occupier knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser was in the vicinity of the danger
3 – The risk was one which the occupier could reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection
Private Nuisance
Unlawful interference with someone’s use or enjoyment of their land
From a business perspective, this includes unreasonable levels of noise and emitting noxious fumes
Just because there is planning permission for an activity, this does not automatically mean that a nuisance doesn’t exist (Coventry v Lawrence (2014))
Public Nuisance
A crime designed to protect certain public rights e.g. safe and unobstructed use of the highway
If a defendant commits a public nuisance, may be prosecuted by the state.
Additionally, if a member of the public suffers particular damage that could sue the defendant in tort
