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?
Held: The statute must be interpreted ‘in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: ‘though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright
Citations:
Times 20-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 348
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1), Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) ECJ 29-May-1997
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 . .
Cited – Paris v Stepney Borough Council HL 13-Dec-1950
(Reversed) The House considered a breach of a duty of care in respect of a man blinded in one eye, when there would be no breach of duty if his sight had not been impaired.
Held: The claim succeeded because he was known by his employers to . .
Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954
The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147381