product liability and duty of care- FS Flashcards
(23 cards)
Why was the Consumer Protection Act 1987 introduced in the context of defective products, and how does it differ from negligence?
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 introduced a strict liability regime, removing the need to prove fault or causation, which is often difficult to establish under a negligence claim.
Under the Narrow Rule from Donoghue v Stevenson, what are the four elements required to establish a duty of care in defective product claims?
The claimant must show:
(1) the defendant is a manufacturer,
(2) the item is a product,
(3) the claimant is a consumer, and
(4) there was no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination before use.
How have courts interpreted the term “manufacturer” under the Narrow Rule in negligence-based product liability?
Courts interpret “manufacturer” broadly to include anyone who works on the product before it reaches the consumer—such as assemblers, installers, repairers, suppliers, and retailers.
What qualifies as a “product” under the Narrow Rule from Donoghue v Stevenson?
A “product” includes any manufactured item capable of causing damage. This includes not just the item itself, but also its packaging, labelling, and safety instructions.
Under the law of negligence, what types of losses are recoverable when a defective product causes harm?
Recoverable losses include personal injury and property damage. Losses that relate solely to the defective quality of the product itself are considered pure economic loss and are not recoverable.
What is considered “pure economic loss” in the context of product liability under negligence, and why is it not recoverable?
Pure economic loss includes reduction in value, repair costs, or replacement costs of the defective product itself. It is not recoverable because it does not arise from personal injury or property damage.
Why might a retailer be liable under the Narrow Rule for a defective product even though they did not manufacture it?
Because the term “manufacturer” is broadly interpreted to include retailers, particularly where they have negligently sold a product known to be unsafe or failed to take appropriate action to prevent foreseeable harm.
What is the significance of the “no possibility of intermediate examination” requirement in product liability under negligence?
This requirement ensures that the consumer had no reasonable opportunity to inspect the product for defects before using it. If such an opportunity existed and the defect could have been discovered, the manufacturer may not owe a duty of care.
What is the third element of the four-part test under the Narrow Rule from Donoghue v Stevenson in product liability?
The claimant must be a “consumer.” This term is interpreted broadly to include any individual who could foreseeably be affected by the defective product, even if they did not purchase or use the product directly.
How have the courts interpreted the term “consumer” in the context of defective products under negligence?
Courts interpret “consumer” to include anyone who may come into contact with a product and could foreseeably suffer harm due to a defect, regardless of whether they purchased, owned, or used the item.
Under what condition will a manufacturer not be held liable to a consumer for harm caused by a defective product?
If the consumer has been alerted to the defect or given clear warnings or instructions regarding the product’s safe use, and chooses to ignore them, the manufacturer may be deemed to have discharged their duty.
What is the fourth requirement of the four-part test under the Narrow Rule from Donoghue v Stevenson?
There must be no reasonable probability of an intermediate examination of the product before it reaches the consumer. If such an inspection is reasonably expected, the manufacturer may not owe a duty.
What is the fourth requirement of the four-part test under the Narrow Rule from Donoghue v Stevenson?
There must be no reasonable probability of an intermediate examination of the product before it reaches the consumer. If such an inspection is reasonably expected, the manufacturer may not owe a duty.
Is a possibility of intermediate examination sufficient to relieve a manufacturer from liability under the Narrow Rule?
No. Only a reasonable probability of intermediate examination is sufficient. A mere possibility does not absolve the manufacturer of a duty of care.
If a third party had the opportunity to inspect a product but failed to do so, how does that affect liability?
The third party may be liable for negligence, but the original manufacturer may still be liable if they had no reason to expect an intermediate inspection would be conducted.
What standard of care is expected from a manufacturer in negligence claims involving defective products?
The manufacturer is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable manufacturer, meaning they must take reasonable care in producing their products to avoid causing foreseeable harm.
In product liability claims under negligence, who bears the burden of proving that the standard of care was breached?
The claimant must prove that the defendant manufacturer fell below the expected standard of care.
What factors are considered by the court when assessing a manufacturer’s breach of duty?
The court considers the likelihood and magnitude of harm, as well as the practicality of taking precautions, just as in general negligence claims.
Why is it often difficult for claimants to prove breach of duty in manufacturing defect claims?
Because claimants are typically not present during the manufacturing process and lack direct knowledge of what went wrong inside the factory.
How do courts approach breach of duty in defective product cases when direct evidence of the manufacturing flaw is unavailable?
Courts are generally willing to infer a breach of duty if the claimant can prove a defect was present and the harm occurred, especially when such a defect would not exist if reasonable care had been taken.
What test is applied to establish factual causation in negligence claims for defective products?
The “but-for” test is applied: but for the manufacturer’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered the harm?
What two factors must be considered after establishing factual causation in defective product negligence claims?
(1) Whether there was a novus actus interveniens (an intervening act breaking the chain of causation), and\
(2) Whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, which determines legal causation and remoteness.
What kind of loss will typically not be considered too remote in product liability negligence claims?
loss that is a foreseeable consequence of the product’s defect—such as physical damage resulting from the defective functioning of the product—will not be considered too remote
