Liability under the Act for a defective product was established where the defect was known, even though the current state of knowledge did not make it possible to identify which of the products was affected. The Act was to be construed to be consistent with the Directive. If the level of safety was below the level consumers could properly expect, the product was defective, and the supplier liable, even though there might be nothing which could be done. The consumer’s legitimate expectation was for safety. The intention of the Directive was to eliminate the need for a complainant to have to prove fault.
Citations:
Times 04-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC QB 446, (2001) 65 BMLR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2, Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smedleys Limited v Breed HL 1974
The defendant company had sold a can of peas. A caterpillar was found in it.
Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. The defence under the Act . .
Cited – Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation HL 1956
The ship had followed a practice of leaving the between deck hatch covers off in the absence of a guard rail around the hatchway. The plaintiff seaman fell into the hold. There was evidence that on this ship it was quite usual for men to be sent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Personal Injury, Consumer
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77569
