Product Liability - Negligence Flashcards
(15 cards)
To whom does a manufacturer’s duty of care extend under Donoghue v Stevenson?
A. To any person who uses or comes into contact with the product
B. Only to the direct purchaser of the product
C. Only to consumers who suffer economic loss
D. To anyone who inspects the product after sale
A. To any person who uses or comes into contact with the product.
Explanation: Donoghue v Stevenson established that manufacturers owe a duty to ultimate consumers and those who come into contact with their products
Which best describes proof of breach in a defective product case?
A. The mere presence of a defect is prima facie evidence of breach unless explained otherwise
B. Proof of a defect automatically proves negligence per se
C. A defect in design cannot ever support a breach claim
D. Only express contractual warranties can establish breach
B. The mere presence of a defect is prima facie evidence of breach unless explained otherwise.
Explanation: While the claimant must prove breach, a defect typically raises a presumption of negligence unless the manufacturer shows a reasonable explanation
What type of loss is generally unrecoverable in negligence product claims?
A. Personal injury caused by a defect
B. Consequential economic loss from property damage
C. Pure economic loss consisting of the cost of replacing the defective product itself
D. Damage to other property caused by the defective product
C. Pure economic loss consisting of the cost of replacing the defective product itself.
Explanation: Pure economic loss (the cost of the defective item) is not recoverable in negligence
How can an intermediate inspection break the chain of causation?
A. If it was reasonably probable that the product would be inspected before use
B. If the final user never saw the warning label
C. If the defect results from a design flaw
D. If the manufacturer lacked resources to test each unit
D. If the manufacturer lacked resources to test each unit.
Explanation: Actually, an intermediate inspection only breaks causation if it was reasonably probable – lack of inspection resource alone does not break causation
A garage fitter negligently repairs a brake line, causing it to fail. Who owes the duty of care?
A. The repairer, as a party in the supply chain who should inspect and repair safely
B. Only the original vehicle manufacturer
C. The police, for not enforcing roadworthiness
D. The purchaser of the car for not testing brakes themselves
A. The repairer, as a party in the supply chain who should inspect and repair safely.
Explanation: Suppliers, repairers, and distributors who ought to have detected the defect owe the same duty as the manufacturer
A distributor sells a metal press without testing; a press fragment injures a worker. Liability depends on:
A. Whether it was reasonable to inspect that product in the circumstances
B. Whether the worker signed a waiver
C. Whether the manufacturer sold the press at a loss
D. Whether the press was used commercially
B. Whether it was reasonable to inspect that product in the circumstances.
Explanation: There is no absolute duty to inspect every item; liability arises if reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect
A hairdresser uses a dye without following the label’s test instructions and causes burns. Causation is broken because:
A. The defect was in the hair not the dye
B. The hairdresser’s failure to test was an intervening act
C. The dye had no warnings
D. The manufacturer knew the hairdresser would ignore tests
C. The dye had no warnings.
Explanation: In Holmes v Ashford, failure to test as instructed broke the chain; a clear warning would have prevented misuse and absolved the manufacturer
A product design flaw causes infrequent, minor injuries. Proving breach by design defect is:
A. Easier than manufacturing defects
B. More difficult, since the standard of reasonable practice at the time must be shown
C. Unnecessary if the product failed
D. Irrelevant once a defect is found
D. More difficult, since the standard of reasonable practice at the time must be shown.
Explanation: Design defects require evidence of the accepted practice and foreseeability at the time of design
Which factor is NOT part of the breach standard for product negligence?
A. Likelihood of harm from the defect
B. Magnitude of potential harm
C. Practicality and cost of precautions at the time
D. The consumer’s subjective expectation of perfection
A. The consumer’s subjective expectation of perfection.
Explanation: Breach is assessed objectively by risk, severity, and precaution cost—not by what any individual consumer expects
Under the defect-presumption rule, a claimant must still prove:
A. That the defect was the only cause of the harm
B. That the manufacturer fell below the standard of a reasonable manufacturer
C. That no warning was provided
D. That the product was used outside its intended purpose
B. That the manufacturer fell below the standard of a reasonable manufacturer.
Explanation: Even with a defect, the claimant must show the manufacturer’s conduct breached the duty of care
If a consumer buys a product knowing it may be faulty and it injures them, the manufacturer’s negligence claim will:
A. Always succeed—knowledge doesn’t affect duty
B. Be barred as pure economic loss
C. Possibly be reduced under contributory negligence principles
D. Require proof of a design defect only
C. Possibly be reduced under contributory negligence principles.
Explanation: The consumer’s own failure (e.g., ignoring warnings) can break causation or give rise to contributory negligence
Which best describes the policy rationale for maintaining negligence claims alongside the CPA 1987?
A. Negligence allows recovery of pure economic loss
B. Negligence covers design issues and allows a fault-based remedy, complementing strict liability under the Act
C. Negligence claims are faster and cheaper
D. Negligence displaces the Act entirely
D. Negligence covers design issues and allows a fault-based remedy, complementing strict liability under the Act.
Explanation: Practitioners must consider both negligence (fault-based) and the CPA (strict liability) to ensure full protection
Which best describes the “state-of-the-art” defence to a design-defect claim?
A. The manufacturer must use the very latest technology, however unaffordable
B. The manufacturer is not negligent if, at the time of design, the defect could not have been discovered using the best scientific and technical knowledge reasonably available
C. The manufacturer can invoke this defence only in B2B transactions
D. It applies only where a statutory standard exists
B. The manufacturer is not negligent if, at the time of design, the defect could not have been discovered using the best scientific and technical knowledge reasonably available.
Explanation: This defence recognizes that manufacturers cannot foresee risks undetectable by contemporary knowledge
When will a warning label be deemed inadequate, breaking the chain of causation?
A. If it uses technical jargon the user cannot understand
B. If it is printed in large, bold type
C. If it precisely describes the dangers and usage instructions
D. If it includes pictograms as well as text
C. If it precisely describes the dangers and usage instructions.
Explanation: Actually, an adequate warning must clearly identify the hazard, its likelihood, and the means of avoidance—anything less may be held insufficient, allowing the manufacturer’s liability to stand
Under the Limitation Act 1980, a negligence claim for personal injury against a manufacturer must be brought within:
A. 2 years from the date of knowledge of the injury
B. 3 years from the date of purchase
C. 6 years from the date of the negligent act
D. 1 year from the date of death
A. 2 years from the date of knowledge of the injury.
Explanation: s.11 of the Limitation Act 1980 requires personal injury claims to be issued within two years of the date on which the claimant first knew (or ought to have known) of the injury
