Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Product liability - Coggle Diagram

- - - - presentation of product
      - use reasonable put to
      - how long in circulation
      - not defective just because better product circulated
    - - objective criteria and needs to introduce risk of injury
      - A v National Blood Authority blood products defective, entitled to expect would be free from infection -objective
      - Bogle v McDondalds hot drinks at Mcdonalds, not defective, people generally expected them to be hot risk of spilling well known
      - Pollard v Tesco safety cap didn't meet British standard but more difficult to open, british standard useful but not deterimitive most members of public wouldn't have known standard so failed
      - Richardson v LRC Products condom failed, failure itself not sufficier - consumer can't legitimately expect it be 100 percent effect
      - Connolly v FAS injured by a saw, met European standards - did not mean exempt didn't provide proper levels of safety
    - - presentation of product
        
        does it have adequate warnings or instructions
      - Reasonable use
        
        is it objectively used reasonably - most products if used wrongly can cause harm (dog in microwave)
        
        X v Johnson and Johnson girl put tampon in wrongplace - instructions sufficiently clear - not defective
        
        Cekanova v Dunnes used glass jug to make hot tea - not use reasonably expected
      - time in circulation
      - batch liability
        
        Boston scientific not able to give a guarantee which ones safe without surgery - presume all defective unless otherwise
  - - - onus on plaintiff to prove 3 elements
        
        plaintiff suffered damage
        
        product defective
        
        causal relationship between defect and damage
- - - - Donoghue v Stevenson - neighbour principle- proximity - duty to ensure safe for intended use = for hidden defects retailer no liability (unless in position able to see defect)
      - Junior Books v veitchi co extends to non-dangerous defects
      - Stennett v Hancock flange detatched from lorry, person who repaired it badly held liable
      - who counts as customers
        
        Barnet v H & J packer shop owner bought sweets intending to sell them, ate them himself - was a customer - duty owed to all those reasonable foreseen to be injured by negligent actions or omissions
      - Duty to warn
        
        Duffy v Rooney no warning on garments caught fire - lost due to no causation - worn clothes with a warning in similar situations
        
        Cassellls v Mark and Spencers girl injured when dress caught fire, labl on it to keep away fire fire, did fall below minimum flamable standards for nightwear, - no liability clear warning 0 not required to meat standards of night as mainly worn outdoors
        
        *Cekanova v Dunnes* glass jug put boiling water in, exploded, High court held liable should have put warning , overturned by CA no onus to put warning for unlikely use
      - Ward v McMaster non-dangerous building defects