Class notes
Tort Notes on product liability
- Course
- Institution
Covers all you need to know about product liability. Many student who have struggled on this topic exceed high 2.1 and 1st class. There is total 44 page.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
muratkoc
Content preview
LECTURE OUTLINE 15: PRODUCT LIABILITYAims and Objectives
(a) To outline the main common law rules as they apply to
product liability
(b) To consider the rationale for Part 1 of the Consumer
Protection Act 1987
(c) To consider the application of Part 1 the Consumer Protection
Act 1987
Learning Outcomes
Attentive students should have acquired:
(a) An understanding of the common law
(b)An understanding of Part 1 of Consumer Protection Act 1987
and the difficulty which the courts have had in applying it
Essential post-lecture reading
Giliker: 9
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part 1
A and others v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289
Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490
Pollard v Tesco Stores [2006] EWCA Civ 393
Additional reading
M. Mildred, ‘Pitfalls in Product Liability’ [2007] Journal of Personal
Injury Law 141
P. Shears, ‘The EU Product Liability Directive: Twenty Years On’
[2007] Journal of Business Law 884
Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2 All ER 578
Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals [1969] 3 All ER 1681
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass [1936] 1 All ER 283
Defective Premises Act 1972
1
,Aswan Engineering v Lupdine [1987] 1 WLR 1
Abouzaid v Mothercare TLR, 20 February 2001; Case No:
B3/2000/2273, 2000 WL 1918530
Piper v JRI (Manufacturing) Ltd (2006) EWCA Civ 1344
Case C-300/95 Commission v UK [1997] All ER (EC) 481
Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096
Baker v KTM Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 378
15.1 INTRODUCTION
The tort law rules on product liability are a mixture of common
law and statute.
There is generally no liability in tort for a productive which simply
fails to work, but there may be liability at common law and/or
under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where a dangerous
product causes harm.
15.2 LIABILITY AT COMMON LAW: GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
The leading common law product liability case is Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Arguably the most famous case in the common law, Donoghue v.
Stevenson is commonly regarded as the case that firmly established
negligence as the most important tort of our time.
The Plaintiff went to a café with a friend, who bought her a bottle of ginger
beer. After drinking most of it, she found a decomposed snail in the bottle
and became ill. The Plaintiff had no contract with the café, so she sued the
manufacturers in tort.
Held - The House of Lords said the manufacturers had a duty of care to the
consumer of their product, even if they don’t know the product is
dangerous and there was no contractual relationship between the parties.
The claimant could not claim in contract, as she did not buy the drink for
herself (in contract law terms she was not party to the contract, and the
rule of privity states that only parties to a contract may sue upon the
contract)
2
,The court thought that she ought to have one, and lord Atkin formulated
the famous ‘neighbour principle’, which kicked off the long modern
development of the tort of negligence.
But the court also focused its attention on the narrow issue before it,
namely the manufacturer of the bottle of ginger beer, and the potential
liability towards the ultimate consumer. The ‘narrow ratio’ in Donoghue,
dealing with the duties of manufacturers towards consumers, clarified the
common law position regarding product liability.
This case established not only the neighbour test but also the principle
that a manufacturer pwes a duty of care to the consumer. As lord atkin
stated (the ‘narrow ratio’):
‘… a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show
that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which
they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination,
and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the
preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the
consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer top take that
reasonable care.’
A) Duty of care
The manufacturer owes a duty of care to anybody who is
injured by the product, not just the user of the product.
Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2 All ER 578
Stennett v Hancock & Peters [1939] 2 All E.R. 578
A flange came off a lorry and the owner took it for repair to Peters, a few
hours afterwards when it was being driven, the flange came off again
injuring the plaintiff.
The court rejected the claim against the owners of the lorry, but the claim
against the second defendants succeeded.
The judge stated he must have known if he didn’t perform the job properly
it could injure someone.
Held – A duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.
The principle in Donoghue v Stevenson also applies to a
defendant who ‘merely’ repairs, rather than manufacturers, a
product.
Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd [1941] 2 KB 343
Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd
3
, The case involved a hydraulic lift which was used to access the upper floor
flats of an apartment block which were rented out to tenants. The landlord
remained in occupation of the lift and had insurance against third party
risks in the course of using the lift. The insurance company made
occasional inspections of the lift in this respect. There was also an
agreement made between the landlord and an engineering company to
maintain the lift each month and report issues. The engineers told the
landlord the rams were badly worn but not that it was dangerous to use.
On one visit, one of the engineers failed to repack the machinery properly,
leaving it weakened for the next use. The next day, the plaintiff used the
lift and was injured when the lift broke. The plaintiff brought an action
against the landlord and engineers.
The Court of Appeal held that the only obligation on the landlord was to
ensure that the lift was reasonably safe and that he had employed
competent engineers to inspect the machinery. It was held on this basis
that the landlord was not liable for the incident
B) Breach of Duty
The burden of proving breach is on the claimant, but the courts
may be quick to infer negligence.
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass [1936] 1 All ER 283
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass
the claimant bought a car fitted with a windscreen made by the
defendants. One year later the windscreen shattered and injured
passengers in the car. It was held that the claimant had to show it was
more probable than not that the injury was due to faulty manufacture. He
could not do this as it was possible that the cause of the defect in the
window was faulty fitting.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936]:
Dr Grant claimed that he had suffered a skin disease from wearing
underpants manufactured by the defendants, because they contained an
excess of sulphites.
C claimed against D manufacturer, when trousers caused a rash rendering
him bed-ridden for 17 weeks, in hospital for three months, and nearly
killed him.
PC: manufacturers were liable in negligence —the presence of a chemical
in the garment was a latent defect and there had been no intermediate
inspection / alteration.
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller muratkoc. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $30.98. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now