A hospital manufactured and used in its hospitals defective fluid for use in kidney operations. It denied liability under the defective product laws on the basis that it had not put the product into circulation, and that it had not been manufactured for an economic purpose, but rather for supply within the publicly funded health … Continue reading Veedfald v Arhus Amtskommune: ECJ 10 May 2001
The UK provision in the 1987 Act did not conflict with the EC Directive on liability for defective products; there was an overriding provision as to interpretation. Europa Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374 – Defence to liability – Condition – State of scientific and technical knowledge not such as … Continue reading Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 29 May 1997
The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act? … Continue reading Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd: CA 21 Dec 2000
The claimant had been vaccinated with a HIB vaccine. He was severely injured and it was said that the vaccine was the cause, and a claim made under the 1987 Act. Originally the claim was made against a UK company, but it should have been against that company’s parent company. When the correct company was … Continue reading OB v Aventis Pasteur SA: HL 11 Jun 2008
Europa Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products Articles 3 and 11 Mistake in the classification of ‘producer’ Judicial proceedings – Application for substitution of the producer for the original defendant Expiry of the limitation period.(Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice) The claimant sought damages after consuming a defective medicine supplied by the company. … Continue reading Aventis Pasteur v O’Byrne (Environment And Consumers): ECJ 2 Dec 2009
The claimant wished to claim damages after suffering serious injury as a child having been vaccinated with a drug manufactured by a defendant (APMSD). The defendant had relied on a defence saying that the limitation period under the Directive was 10 years. The claimant had then to choose another company (APSA) as defendant. On a … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa: SC 26 May 2010
The claimant sought damages under the 1967 Act asserting injury from a drug sold by the defendant. Proceedings had been mistakenly commenced against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd within the limitation period, but outside the limitation period, it was sought to substitute the actual manufacturer Aventis Pasteur SA. Held: The substitution should be made. The sole … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2006