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 to enable the defect to be discovered – Concept – National implementing provision – Infringement not made out – In order for a producer to incur liability for defective products under Directive 85/374, the victim does not have to prove that the producer was at fault; however, in accordance with the principle of fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer set forth in the seventh recital in the preamble to the directive, the producer has a defence if he can prove certain facts exonerating him from liability, including `that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered’. Whilst the producer has to prove that the objective state of scientific and technical knowledge, including the most advanced level of such knowledge, without any restriction as to the industrial sector concerned, was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered, in order for the relevant knowledge to be successfully pleaded as against the producer, that knowledge must have been accessible at the time when the product in question was put into circulation. A national implementing provision to the effect that the producer has a defence if he can prove that the state of such knowledge was `not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control’ is not manifestly contrary to that Community rule. The argument that such national provision permits account to be taken of the subjective knowledge of a producer taking reasonable care, having regard to the standard precautions taken in the industrial sector in question, selectively stresses particular terms used in the provision without demonstrating that the general legal context of the provision at issue fails effectively to secure full application of the directive.
Citations:
Times 23-Jun-1997, (1997) 3 CMLR 923, [1997] EUECJ C-300/95
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Protection Act 1987 4(1)(c) 1(1), Council Directive 85/374/EEC, Directive 85/374/EEC
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd CA 21-Dec-2000
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 . .
Cited – Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham Admn 10-Oct-2003
Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161681