Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Product Liability (Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Defences (Limitation Act…
Product Liability
Consumer Protection Act 1987
Statute supplements the common law rather than replacing it, meaning claimants can still claim under negligence
Who can claim?
Not limited to consumers, anyone suffering death, personal injury or property damage as a result of a defective product
s2(1) D liable when any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product
s5(1) Damage means death or personal injury or any loss of or damage to property
Damage to property claims are limited though
Does not cover damage to the product itself
Doesn't cover damage to business property
Total value of claim must exceed £275
Who can be held liable?
s2(a) The Producer of a product which is outlined in s1(2) as:
S1(2)(a) The person who manufactured it
S1(2)(b) In relation to substances won or extracted, the person who won or extracted it
S1(2)(c) In relation to products attributable to an industrial or other process...the person who carried out that process
s2(b) Own-Branders
s2(c) Importers (Into the EU
s2(d) Suppliers
What classes as a defect?
S3(1) There is a defect in a product if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect
What circumstances should be considered?
A v National Blood Authority [2001] said that all relevant circumstances should be considered when deciding if a product is defective
This was rejected by Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd. [2016] which said that whether a risk is avoidable is relevant under the statute and the benefit of products should be weighed against their risks
S3(2) All circumstances should be taken into account when deciding what is expected
Manner in which the product is marketed
It's packaging
The use of any marks in relation to the product
Any instructions/Warnings
What might be reasonably expected to be done with the product
Time when the product was supplied
Generally, a defect is a problem with the safety of the product, rather than with the quality of the product
Cases
Richardson v LRC Products [2000]
Condom splits but court held product not defective as there is not a public perception that they are 100% safe
Worsley v Tambrands [2000]
Woman developed toxic shock syndrome from tampons but court held the product was not defective as there was a warning on the box and more detailed warnings inside the box which commensurated the risk
Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006]
Baby ingested dishwasher powder and suffered injury as the safety lock didn't conform to British safety standards. Court said not liable as the test was if the product was safe and not if it complied with industry standards
Defences
s4(1)(a) The defect is attributable to compliance with any requirement imposed by law
s4(1)(c) Where the supply by the defendant was not in the course of business
s6(4) Contributory Negligence
Limitation Act 1980
Usual rule is three years from the date that the action occurred to claim
But a long-stop limitation period of ten years after the product was put into circulation by the defendant
s4(1)(e) 'Development Risks Defence'
The scientific or technological capacities of the defendant could not identify the issues with the product at the time of the injury
Burden of proof on the producer relying on the defence
History of Product Liability
Liability is fault-based and not strict like in contract law, and does not follow privity of doctrine
In 19th century, manufacturers owed no duty of care unless the product itself was considered dangerous
Law changed under Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Compensation can now be claimed for:
Property Damage
Not for pure economic loss
Personal Injury
Proving Fault
Manufacturing Defects
Something has gone wrong with the production of the product before it was sent to market
Can often infer a breach of duty from the existence of a defect
Evans v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]: Injury caused by failing to wash underwear properly before it was sent to market
Possibility of intermediate Inspection
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Ltd. [1936]
Glass fitted by the defendants shattered after an accident in a way which it shouldn't have
Court held there was no liability as the glass was fitted over a year prior, and there had been ample opportunity to inspect the windscreen
C knows about the defect
Howmet Ltd. v Economy Devices Ltd [2016]
C made parts for aerospace industry and had bought a piece of equipment to detect whether their machinery was running at the correct temperature
Sensor failed to work and the factory burnt down, but court held no liability as some employees knew of the defect and did nothing to rectify it
Design Defects
Key design flaw with the actual product itself
Pearson Commission recommended the introduction of strict liability for defective products
Arguments for strict liability
Enterprise liability theory: Manufacturers are better able to absorb costs than claimants
Moral enterprise liability theory: Manufacturers reap the benefits so should be responsible for the risks
Deterrence theory: Increases incentives to design and manufacture products safer
Control Theory: Manufacturers control the design and manufacturing process so are always at fault
Arguments against strict liability
Hinders innovation and thus restricts consumer choice
Increases the cost of products as manufacturers spread costs