Tort: Product Liability

Question 1

What is the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987)?

Answer 1

To provide a strict liability regime for damage caused by defective products, allowing claimants to recover without proving fault, supplementing negligence and contract claims.

Question 2

Under CPA 1987

Answer 2

what counts as a “product”?

Question 3

According to CPA 1987 s 3(1)

Answer 3

when is a product deemed “defective”?

Question 4

What factors does CPA 1987 s 3(2) list to determine if a product is defective?

Answer 4

(1) The manner and purpose for which the product is marketed; (2) Reasonably expected usage; (3) The time of supply to another.

Question 5

Give an example from case law where lack of warning rendered a product defective.

Answer 5

“In Abouzaid v Mothercare

Question 6

What types of “damage” are recoverable under CPA 1987 s 5(1)?

Answer 6

“Death

Question 7

Under CPA 1987 s 5(3) and (4)

Answer 7

which property damage claims are excluded?

Question 8

What does CPA 1987 s 2(2) say about who is liable for defective products?

Answer 8

(a) The producer; (b) Anyone who held themselves out as producer by name/trademark; (c) Anyone who imported the product into the UK for supply.

Question 9

How does CPA 1987 define a “producer” under s 1(2)?

Answer 9

“(1) The manufacturer of a product; (2) The person who won/abstracted raw materials; (3) The person who carried out a process giving the product its essential characteristics.”

Question 10

What does CPA 1987 s 2(3) require of a supplier?

Answer 10

If asked within a reasonable time, a supplier must identify the producer/importer for anyone claiming damage; failure makes the supplier liable as if they were producer.

Question 11

Under CPA 1987

Answer 11

how are multiple liable parties treated?

Question 12

Who can bring a claim under CPA 1987?

Answer 12

Anyone suffering recoverable damage (death, personal injury, or qualifying property loss), regardless of purchase or usage of the product.

Question 13

Why does CPA 1987 not require proof of “fault” by the defendant?

Answer 13

Because it is a strict liability regime: liability arises from the existence of a defect causing damage, irrespective of negligence.

Question 14

Give a scenario illustrating that a non‐user of a product can claim under CPA 1987.

Answer 14

“A passerby is injured by shattered glass from a defective toy thrown by a child—though they never bought or used it

Question 15

What is the defence under CPA 1987 s 4(1)(d)?

Answer 15

“That the defect did not exist in the product at the ‘relevant time’ (when it was put into circulation).”

Question 16

What is the defence under CPA 1987 s 4(1)(e)?

Answer 16

That, at the relevant time, scientific/technical knowledge could not reasonably have discovered the defect (state‐of‐the‐art defence).

Question 17

Why does the “state‐of‐the‐art” defence not excuse a known but unfixable defect?

Answer 17

Because s 4(1)(e) only excuses inability to discover, not inability to remedy a known defect.

Question 18

How does contributory negligence apply under CPA 1987?

Answer 18

Under s 6(4), a defendant can reduce liability if the claimant’s own negligence contributed to their damage.

Question 19

Can a producer exclude liability under CPA 1987?

Answer 19

No—s 7 prohibits any contractual or notice‐based exclusion or limitation of liability for CPA 1987 claims.

Question 20

What is the general limitation period for claims under CPA 1987?

Answer 20

Three years from the date of damage or from when the claimant knew/should have known of the damage (Limitation Act 1980 s 11A(4)).

Question 21

What is the “long stop” limitation for CPA 1987 claims?

Answer 21

Ten years from the product’s first placing on the market (Limitation Act 1980 s 11A(3)), which bars any action after that period.

Question 22

Explain why a business cannot claim under CPA 1987 for a defective tool it uses.

Answer 22

“CPA 1987 s 5(3) excludes property damage to items not intended for private use/occupation/consumption

Question 23

How does CPA 1987 interact with negligence and contract claims?

Answer 23

It provides an independent strict liability option; claimants should assess: (1) negligence (fault), (2) contract (privity), and (3) CPA strict liability.

Question 24

What is the key difference between CPA 1987 liability and negligence?

Answer 24

CPA 1987 imposes liability for defects without proving fault, whereas negligence requires proof that the defendant breached their duty of care.

Question 25

Why might a claimant prefer a negligence action over CPA 1987?

Answer 25

If damage is purely economic (not recoverable under CPA), or if discovering the defect after 10‐year long stop but within six years for negligence.

Question 26

When assessing a product under CPA 1987

Answer 26

why is marketing relevant?

Question 27

How does the “time of supply” affect the defect test?

Answer 27

Under s 3(2), safety expectations may differ over time; a product safe decades ago might be defective now due to evolving standards.

Question 28

Give an example of a product defect claim limited to private consumers.

Answer 28

“A homeowner’s fish pond pump explodes and floods their garden—recoverable under CPA. A farmer’s pump causing field damage is excluded as not private use.”

Question 29

Why does CPA 1987 still matter post‐Brexit?

Answer 29

Because UK producers export to the EU and must meet harmonized strict‐liability standards; domestic law mirrors the EU directive.

Question 30

Why can a third‐party injured by a defective product sue under CPA 1987?

Answer 30

Because s 2(1) grants anyone suffering recoverable damage the right to claim, not just purchasers or users of the product.

Question 31

What happens if a supplier cannot identify the producer when asked?

Answer 31

Under s 2(3), if the supplier fails to identify, they become fully liable for damage as if they were the producer.

Question 32

Why is a recalled product still problematic if it causes harm later?

Answer 32

Because CPA 1987 s 11A(3) long‐stop (10 years after first market) may bar claims even if defect manifested later.

Question 33

What does “loss of the product itself” mean in CPA context?

Answer 33

It refers to the cost of replacing the defective item, which is not recoverable as it is pure economic loss.

Question 34

What role do warnings play under CPA 1987?

Answer 34

Warnings influence what consumers ‘generally expect’ under s 3(1), but do not exclude liability; failure to warn can render a product defective.

Question 35

Give an example distinguishing “abstracted” versus “manufactured” products under CPA.

Answer 35

Coal is ‘abstracted’ and its extractor is producer; a car is ‘manufactured’ and its manufacturer is producer.

Question 36

Explain the significance of “component part” in the definition of product.

Answer 36

“Even if a computer chip is embedded in a smartphone

Question 37

How does CPA 1987 protect users of imported products?

Answer 37

“Importers into the UK are liable as ‘producers’ under s 2(2)(c)

Question 38

Why is it safer for consumers that CPA 1987 is strict liability?

Answer 38

“Consumers need not investigate manufacturers’ conduct—liability hinges solely on the defect causing damage

Question 39

If a product injures someone after 11 years on the market

Answer 39

why can’t they claim under CPA?

Question 40

Why might a claimant find a negligence claim superior to a CPA claim?

Answer 40

If the defect was discovered after the 10-year CPA limit but within the six-year negligence limit, or if seeking pure economic loss.

Question 41

Why does CPA 1987 bar claims for property damage under £275?

Answer 41

To reduce trivial claims and administrative burden, limiting recovery to more substantial losses (s 5(4)).

Question 42

How does the time of supply impact defect assessments for antique products?

Answer 42

Antique products are judged by safety expectations at their original supply time; modern standards don’t retroactively apply under s 3(2)(c).

Question 43

What must a claimant prove to succeed under CPA 1987?

Answer 43

(1) Damage was caused wholly/partly by a defect in a product; (2) Defendant is liable (producer/importer/defendant‐as‐producer); (3) No valid defence applies.

Question 44

Why does CPA 1987 not require proof of “foreseeability” of harm?

Answer 44

Because strict liability under CPA hinges on defect existence, not on whether defendant could foresee damage as in negligence.

Question 45

How is “damage to property” capped under CPA 1987?

Answer 45

Recovery is only for property damage exceeding £275 and for property intended for private use by the claimant (s 5(3)–(4)).

Question 46

Why might a retailer still face liability under CPA 1987 even if they didn’t make the product?

Answer 46

If they cannot identify producer/importer when asked, they become liable as if they were the producer (s 2(3)).

Question 47

How does CPA 1987 incentivize manufacturers to maintain high safety standards?

Answer 47

Strict liability for defects means manufacturers must proactively ensure safety, as any defect causing damage leads to liability without proving fault.

Question 48

How might CPA 1987 influence product recalls?

Answer 48

Knowing strict liability applies, producers will more readily recall defective products to avoid liability for damages caused post‐circulation.

Question 49

Why can a consumer claim against an importer under CPA 1987?

Answer 49

Importers are treated as ‘producers’ if they bring products into the UK for supply (s 2(2)(c)), making them liable for defects like domestic manufacturers.

Question 50

What is the effect of a valid “state‐of‐the‐art” defence under CPA 1987?

Answer 50

“It absolves liability if it was impossible to discover a defect given contemporary scientific and technical knowledge (s 4(1)(e)).”

Question 51

Why does CPA 1987 include raw materials in its definition of product?

Answer 51

“To capture defects in any component that causes damage when incorporated

Question 52

When can someone rely on CPA 1987 if they didn’t purchase or use the defective item?

Answer 52

If they suffer recoverable damage (death, injury, qualifying property loss) caused by a defect, they can sue under s 2(1) without buying/using it.

Question 53

Why are business losses typically excluded under CPA 1987?

Answer 53

Because s 5(3) restricts property damage coverage to items intended for private use/consumption, limiting claims to consumers rather than businesses.

Question 54

What is the impact of CPA 1987’s joint and several liability provision?

Answer 54

Multiple liable parties can be pursued for full damages (s 2(5)). A defendant who pays can seek contribution from others, but the claimant recovers without pro rata reductions.

Question 55

When is a product’s “time of supply” evaluated in a CPA 1987 claim?

Answer 55

It’s assessed at the moment the defendant, as producer/importer, supplied the product to another (s 4(2)), determining relevant scientific knowledge for the defence.

Question 56

Why does CPA 1987 not allow claims for damage to non‐private property?

Answer 56

To align with consumer protection objectives, s 5(3) limits recoverable property damage to items intended chiefly for private use, excluding commercial or industrial property.

Question 57

What if a product’s defect is only injurious after several years?

Answer 57

Even if damage manifests late, CPA 1987 allows three years from awareness (Limitation Act s 11A(4)), but the 10-year long stop (s 11A(3)) may bar very late claims.

Question 58

How does CPA 1987 differ from contract claims in terms of privity?

Answer 58

CPA allows anyone harmed by a defect to sue, bypassing contractual privity—unlike contract where only parties to the purchase agreement can sue.

Question 59

Why is the absence of a “fault” requirement important for victims?

Answer 59

It removes the need to investigate and prove manufacturer negligence, lowering legal hurdles and broadening access to compensation.

Question 60

When must a supplier identify the producer under CPA 1987?

Answer 60

Within a reasonable time after being asked by someone suffering damage; failure makes the supplier treatable as producer (s 2(3)).

Question 61

What is the policy reason behind excluding pure economic loss under CPA 1987?

Answer 61

To prevent a flood of speculative claims and maintain focus on personal injury and consumer property damage, aligning with EU directive limits.

Question 62

Why is the “reasonable expectation” test under s 3 stricter than negligence’s “reasonable care”?

Answer 62

Negligence asks if the producer took reasonable steps; s 3 asks if safety meets public expectations, setting a higher, outcome‐focused standard.

Question 63

What if a product is only marginally dangerous and unlikely to harm?

Answer 63

The consumer’s general expectations may still consider the marginal risk unacceptable; s 3 focuses on tolerated risk, not only probable harm.

Question 64

When might a retailer face liability even if they promptly identify the producer?

Answer 64

If they identified incorrectly or the true producer is out of reach, the claimant may still hold the retailer liable for any damage until correct identification.

Question 65

How does CPA 1987 protect users of complex imported machinery?

Answer 65

Importers of machinery into the UK are liable as ‘producers’ for defects, ensuring victims can sue a UK‐based defendant rather than overseas manufacturer.

Question 66

Why does CPA 1987 not cover products made/sold before 1987?

Answer 66

Because the Act applies only to products put into circulation after it came into force; pre‐1987 products rely on negligence/contract law instead.

Question 67

Why does CPA 1987 limit property damage claims to private use?

Answer 67

To channel the regime toward consumer protection rather than broader commercial disputes, focusing resources on individual harms and aligning with EU standards.

Question 68

Why can a third party injured by a defective part of an assembled product sue?

Answer 68

Because CPA 1987 includes components (s 1(2)), so even if the injured party never interacted with the final product, they can claim against the component’s producer.

Question 69

What does CPA 1987’s joint and several liability mean for injured claimants?

Answer 69

They can recover the full amount from any one liable party, who can then seek contribution from others, ensuring easier and more complete compensation.

Question 70

When does a consumer’s “aware of damage” clock start under CPA 1987?

Answer 70

When they know or should reasonably know of both the injury/property damage and its link to a product defect (Limitation Act s 11A(4)).

Question 71

Why can CPA 1987 be more favorable than negligence for catastrophic injuries?

Answer 71

Because strict liability eliminates fault‐finding, speeding recovery for severe harms without protracted negligence analysis.

Question 72

How does CPA 1987 treat risks of damage to “products comprised in that product”?

Answer 72

s 3(1) extends safety expectations to embedded components, so a defective microchip in a phone can give rise to liability for phone maker.

Question 73

When might a manufacturer rely on the “state‐of‐the‐art” defence successfully?

Answer 73

If they prove that contemporary scientific knowledge could not have detected a design flaw in a novel medical implant at the time of production.

Question 74

Why does CPA 1987 apply even if a consumer’s use was not intended by producer?

Answer 74

Because defect assessment under s 3 considers “reasonably expected use”; unintended misuse may still be protected if within those expectations.

Question 75

How does CPA 1987 balance consumer expectations and innovation?

Answer 75

By setting strict liability but allowing s 4(1)(e) state-of-the-art defence, it pushes safer design while not punishing producers for unforeseeable novel risks.

Question 76

What is the role of labeling and instructions under CPA 1987?

Answer 76

Proper labeling and instructions shape public safety expectations (s 3), reducing perceived defectiveness and guiding safe usage to mitigate liability.

Question 77

How does CPA 1987 encourage recall decisions by producers?

Answer 77

Knowing strict liability applies, producers face full liability for harm; proactive recalls can limit exposure and demonstrate compliance with safety expectations.

Question 78

When is a defect considered to “wholly or partly” cause damage under s 2(1)?

Answer 78

If the defect is one contributory cause—regardless of other factors—the producer is liable, even if misuse or other causes also played a role.

Question 79

Why does CPA 1987’s defect test not depend on “intended use” alone?

Answer 79

Because s 3(2) includes “expected reasonably” usage, capturing foreseeable off-label uses that still fall within consumer safety expectations.