Product Liability Flashcards
(27 cards)
Donoghue v Stevenson in the context of product liability
Neighbour principle +
Manufacturer owes duty to end consumer, where he sells products to be used in the final form with no opportunity for intermediate inspection, where it is foreseeable that a failure to take care may result in injury to consumer’s life or property, to take reasonable care.
Grant v Australian - Application of Donoghue to clothing
Longjohns caused dermatitis due to negligence.
Donoghue applied and duty found - no means of detecting the hidden danger in the final product
Hobbs v Baxenden - Warning customers after selling?
D made false claims about product without realising, realised years later they were false
C suffers fire due to lack of insulation
Held duty arises if manufacturer realises later that an omission to warn prior customers about a risk could result in injury.
Carroll v Fearon - Negligence in factory
Default in manufacturing of the tyre - how do we identify who was negligent?
Do not need to identify any individual or group who caused it - if the manufacturing process worked as intended, the defect would not have happened. Dunlop breached duty by realising risk and failing to recall.
Muirhead - pure economic loss claims against ult manufacturer?
Bad product caused lobsters to die, C wanted to sue for the profit he would have gotten on them.
Held: If you are seeking to recover for pure economic loss arising from defects, you must look to immediate vendor, not to the ultimate manufacturer. The duty a manufacturer owes to the end user does not extend to PEE.
Aswan v Lupdine - Extreme use?
C bought a compound stored in buckets.
Left in Kuwait on the dock, 70 degrees C.
Buckets melted, compound damaged.
Held: No duty due to extreme use of buckets, damage was not reasonably foreseeable.
Orjula - Having to take steps to neutralise danger.
Barrels of acid leaking due to damaged drums. Boat had to be evacuated and cleaned.
Could they sue for costs? D argued there was no duty because the problem was discovered before any actionable damage to property.
Held: They can claim since they had to take steps to neutralise the danger and the vessel was contaminated until fixed.
Barcardi-Martini v Thomas Hardy - damage to product itself?
Defective CO2 provided to make Bacardi rum fizzy.
This ruined it.
Was there actionable damage to property?
Held: New product was not damaged, but merely rendered defective from moment of creation - not property damage. We need to show an item caused damage to property other than the product itself.
Finesse v Bryson - is ugliness damage?
Cs produced stands for exhibitions, faulty adhesives caused peeling and undesirable appearance.
Held: No actual damage - not a complex structure and had not caused physical damage other than to thing itself
Buildings - D&F and Murphy
D&F: Defective plaster - C sought to recover for loss that it caused and cost needed to repair.
Held that the fact that I need to repair something before it has caused any damage is not an actionable form of damage in negligence - PEL.
You just have a less valuable wall, no damage has occurred.
Murphy v Brentwood: A defect in property which is dangerous but discovered by purchaser in time to avert injury, is pure economic loss.
Defect in structure is defect in quality of the whole - it cannot cause actionable damage to other parts of the property.
CPA 1987 s1 - definitions
Definition of products and producer
CPA 1987 s2 - who is liable
Where damage caused by defect, every person below liable:
- Producers
- Persons who held themselves out to be producers by putting name or mark on product
- Importers in the course of business to supply it to another
- A supplier may also be liable if they have been requested to identify one of the above and have not done so.
CPA 1987 s3 - defect
Defect: If the safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect.
Factors to take into account: (a) Manner in which it was marketed, ‘get-up’, any marks, instructions, warnings etc
(b) What might reasonably be expected to be done with or in relation to the product
(c) time when it was supplied by the producer
CPA 1987 defences - s4
S4: Defences:
(a) Defect attributable to requirement imposed
(b) They did not supply product (eg stolen from them)
(c) Not supplied in the course of business, or not done with view to profit.
(d) Defect did not exist in product at the relevant time
(e) state of scientific knowledge not such that they could be expected to discover the defect
Relevant time = time at which it was supplied
Remember defences only relevant after defect discovered, and do not aid someone who is arguing they don’t have a defect.
CPA 1987 s5 - damage
Damage:
(1) Death of personal injury or loss or damage to property
(2) Property damage does not apply to loss of or damage to the product itself, or any part of a product supplied with the product in question within it.
(3) Not liable for loss of or damage to property which isn’t intended for private use
(4) £275 floor on claims
Computer Associates UK Ltd v Software Incubator - software as a good?
CA: Software provided via download using link is not a good, goods must be tangible property.
CJEU: It is a good where it is a perpetual license to use that software.
VI v Krone - health advice in newspaper?
Inaccurate health advice published in a printed newspaper and concerns use of another physical item is not within the scope of the Directive, does not render the newspaper defective.
Capfi SA v Enedis SA (meaning of producer in regard to electricity)
Surge in electricity caused property damage, could operator of electricity distribution network be sued?
They argued they did not produce the electricity but just channelled it.
Held: They are a producer where they alter the voltage level with a view of distributing to end consumer.
Abouzaid v Mothercare (Defect, elastic)
Elastic in a pram which was dangerous was a defect.
Supplied with a design which allowed a risk to arise, members of public entitled to expect better.
A lack of reasonable foreseeability on part of producer, and lack of knowledge of previous accidents is irrelevant - this is a strict liability regime.
Bogle v McDonald’s - Coffee case, lids
Young boy spilt McDonald’s coffee with lid remove and spilt it, C argued that the ability to remove lid made it a defective product.
Held: Many people prefer to drink from unlidded cup, people generally know about the risks of hot beverages and that care must be taken - so the safety did not fall below that which the gen pub. entitled to expect.
A v National Blood Authority - significance of ability to take steps? Standard v non-standard products - what do we consider?
Blood contaminated with Hep C. Cs couldn’t claim in neg, since at the time of supply no screening procedures were in place.
NBA accepted there was a risk known at the time of Hep C, but there was no mechanism for screening blood, hence the harm was unavoidable and they couldn’t have taken further steps.
Held: It doesn’t matter if harm was unavoidable. Made distinction between rogue ‘non-standard’ products which have a rogue contamination/issue, versus ‘standard’ products, where there is an issue with the design such that the entire product line is defective.
For ‘non-standard’ products like the present, we do not consider whether steps might have been taken - it is enough that the product doesn’t align with the standard expected.
Of course, if state of scientific understanding means no-one knows about it then that is different - defence. However, here the risk was appreciated they just couldn’t screen for it.
Pollard v Tesco
Dishwasher powder had child-resistant caps. Argued that they should have been more child-resistant, not hard enough to open.
CA held not defective - What are persons generally entitled to expect? That this would be more difficult to open than normal bottles, which it was.
O’Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur- substitution and limitation periods?
C vaccinated, claims this caused harm.
C brought claim against X within 10 year limitation period, but actually should have claimed against Y.
Applied to substitute Y in after the 10 year period expired.
SC held that it would be inconsistent with the directive to allow substitution in such cases.
Wilkes v DePuy - standard product considerations?
Potential defect in artificial hip, it had undergone testing and met relevant UK and EU standards.
Held that for standard products, you take into account ALL circumstances, including possibility of avoiding the risk, regulatory compliance - you aren’t restricted in factors to consider.
