Product liability under Consumer Protection Act 1987 - Product Liability- FS Flashcards
(24 cards)
What key legal principle was introduced by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 regarding liability for defective products?
The Act introduced a strict liability regime, meaning claimants do not need to prove fault—only that the product was defective and caused damage.
What are the three essential elements that a claimant must establish to bring a successful claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
The claimant must prove:
- They suffered damage,
- The damage was caused by a defect,
- The defect was in the product.
What types of damage are recoverable under Section 5 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Recoverable damage includes:
* Death * Personal injury * Damage to private property exceeding £275 in value
What types of damage are not recoverable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
What types of damage are not recoverable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
- Damage to private property valued at £275 or less
- Damage to business property
- Cost of repairing or replacing the defective product itself (classified as pure economic loss)
How does the causation requirement under the CPA 1987 differ from that in negligence claims?
Under the CPA 1987, the claimant must only show that the defect caused the damage. There is no need to establish a breach of duty or fault—making causation simpler and more claimant-friendly than in negligence.
Why is it easier for claimants to succeed under the CPA 1987 than under negligence in product liability claims?
Because liability is strict—the claimant is not required to prove the manufacturer acted negligently, only that a defect existed and caused qualifying damage.
Why is the cost of replacing the defective product not recoverable under the CPA 1987?
Because such a loss is considered pure economic loss, which is not compensable under the strict liability provisions of the Act.
Can a claimant recover for damage caused to a business-related item under the CPA 1987?
No, damage to business property is excluded from recovery under the Act, which only allows recovery for private property above the £275 threshold.
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, how is a defect in a product legally defined?
A product has a defect if its safety is not such as persons are generally entitled to expect, taking into account all the circumstances.
What key factors does the Act list as relevant when determining whether a product is defective?
The court considers:
- The presentation of the product (e.g. packaging, instructions, and warnings),
- The expected use of the product, and
- The time the product was supplied.
How does the presentation of a product affect whether it is considered defective?
If the product includes clear warnings or instructions, this may affect what level of safety people are entitled to expect, potentially preventing it from being classified as defective even if harm occurs.
How does expected use factor into whether a product is defective under the CPA 1987?
A product may not be considered defective if it was misused in a way that was not reasonably foreseeable, as people are only entitled to expect safety during intended or foreseeable use.
Why is the time of supply relevant in assessing product defectiveness under the Act?
Products that were safe when first supplied but deteriorate over time may not be defective if the decline in safety is consistent with what people should reasonably expect given the product’s age.
Under the CPA 1987, how does strict liability apply to cases where a product is later discovered to be unsafe despite the manufacturer’s lack of fault?
The strict liability regime holds the producer liable regardless of fault; even if the defect was undetectable at the time, the product may still be considered defective if it falls below expected safety standards.
How is the term product defined under Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
A product includes any goods or electricity, and it also includes component parts or raw materials that are incorporated into other goods
Can a component part of a final product be considered a defective product under the CPA 1987?
Yes. A component or raw material used in another product qualifies as a product under the Act and can be defective in its own right, even if it is not the final assembled item.
Under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, who are the four categories of persons that may be held liable for defective products?
The four categories are:
(1) the producer (manufacturer),
(2) own branders,
(3) importers, and
(4) forgetful suppliers (those who fail to identify others in the supply chain when requested).
What is the liability principle for a producer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
A producer (usually the manufacturer) is liable for a defect in the product. If the defect arises from a component part, both the component manufacturer and the assembler of the final product may be jointly liable.
How does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 define an “own brander” and impose liability on them?
An own brander is anyone who presents themselves as the producer by placing their name or trademark on the product. They are liable under the Act even if they did not manufacture the product themselves.
When can an importer be held liable for a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
An importer is liable when they bring a product into the UK. They are considered liable under the Act in place of the actual producer if the producer is outside the UK.
What is the liability status of suppliers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Suppliers are not generally liable unless they become “forgetful suppliers” by failing to provide information about the producer or importer upon request from the claimant.
What triggers liability for a “forgetful supplier” under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
A supplier becomes liable if, upon receiving a request from an injured party, they fail to identify the relevant producer, importer, or own brander responsible for the product.
What type of liability does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 impose on persons covered under it?
The Act imposes strict liability, meaning the claimant does not need to prove negligence—only that the damage was caused by a defect in the product.
In what scenario can a person be liable under the Act even if the defect was unavoidable or unknown?
Liability exists even if the defect could not have been prevented or foreseen, as the Act is based on strict liability principles. This reflects the protection of consumers over producer fault.
