Product liability - CPA 1987

What is the statutory basis for product-liability claims involving defective products?

The statutory basis is the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

What is the underlying rationale of product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Consumers are entitled to expect that products will not be defective, regardless of whether the manufacturer was personally at fault.

Is liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 fault-based or strict?

Liability is strict, so the claimant does not need to prove fault by the defendant.

Does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 replace negligence or breach-of-contract claims involving defective products?

No. A claim under the Act should be considered alongside any available negligence or breach-of-contract claim.

What does section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provide?

Where damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, every person falling within section 2(2) may be liable for that damage.

What must a claimant generally establish under section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The claimant must establish a product, a defect, recoverable damage, a defendant within section 2(2), and a causal link between the defect and the damage.

How is a “product” defined by section 1(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A product includes any goods or electricity, including a product incorporated into another product as a component or raw material.

Can a component incorporated into another product qualify as a product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Yes. A component such as a computer chip inside a computer can itself qualify as a product under section 1(2).

Can electricity qualify as a product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Yes. Electricity is expressly included within the section 1(2) definition of a product.

How is a “defect” defined by section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect.

What kinds of safety are considered when deciding whether a product is defective under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The court considers safety in relation to personal injury, death and property damage.

Is the test for a defect under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 based on whether the producer was careless?

No. The test focuses on the level of safety that persons generally are entitled to expect, rather than on the producer’s fault.

What factors affect the level of safety persons are entitled to expect under section 3(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Relevant factors include how and for what purposes the product was marketed, what might reasonably be done with it, and the time when it was supplied.

How can the way a product is marketed affect whether it is defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Marketing may shape the level of safety that persons generally are entitled to expect from the product.

What did Richardson v LRC Products Ltd establish about product defects under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Richardson v LRC Products Ltd held that a condom’s failure, resulting in pregnancy, did not itself mean that the product was defective.

Why did the condom failure in Richardson v LRC Products Ltd not automatically amount to a defect?

The safety consumers were generally entitled to expect did not amount to an absolute guarantee that the condom could never fail.

What did A v National Blood Authority establish about defective products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A v National Blood Authority held that blood infected with hepatitis was defective despite the authority having taken reasonable care.

Why was the blood defective in A v National Blood Authority despite the producer’s reasonable care?

Strict liability focuses on legitimate safety expectations, which may be higher than the standard required to avoid negligence, particularly where serious risks are involved.

What distinction can be drawn between Richardson v LRC Products Ltd and A v National Blood Authority?

In Richardson, product failure did not exceed legitimate safety expectations; in A v National Blood Authority, infected blood fell below the safety persons were entitled to expect despite reasonable care.

How does the seriousness of a product’s potential risk affect safety expectations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Products involving serious risks may attract a particularly high level of expected safety.

How does the reasonably expected use of a product affect whether it is defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The court considers what persons might reasonably be expected to do with, or in relation to, the product.

What did Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd establish about product defects?

Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd held that a product may be defective because of a design risk and inadequate warning even though the product itself is not broken.

Can a product be defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 even if it functions as designed?

Yes. A product may be defective if its design or lack of warning makes it less safe than persons generally are entitled to expect.

Why is the time when a product was supplied relevant to whether it was defective?

Safety expectations are assessed in light of the circumstances and knowledge existing when the producer supplied the product.

What damage is recoverable under section 5(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Recoverable damage includes death, personal injury, and loss of or damage to qualifying property.

Can a claimant recover under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for damage to the defective product itself?

No. Section 5(1) excludes recovery for the loss of or damage to the defective product itself.

Can a claimant recover under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for damage to a product supplied together with the defective product as part of it?

No. Damage to another product supplied with the defective product as part of it is excluded.

What minimum amount of property damage is required under section 5(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The property-damage award must exceed £275.

What property qualifies for recovery under section 5(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The property must ordinarily be intended for private use, occupation or consumption and must have been intended for that purpose by the person suffering the loss.

Are business property losses generally recoverable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

No. Business losses are generally unlikely to satisfy the private-use requirement in section 5(3).

Who may be liable under section 2(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Liability may fall on the producer, an own-brander who holds themselves out as producer, or a business importer bringing the product into the UK from outside the UK for supply.

Who is liable as a producer under section 2(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The producer of the defective product may be liable for damage caused by the defect.

Who is an “own-brander” under section 2(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

An own-brander is someone who places their name, trademark or other distinguishing mark on a product and thereby holds themselves out as its producer.

Can a business be liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 merely by placing its own brand on a product?

Yes. A person who holds themselves out as producer through branding may be liable under section 2(2)(b).

When may an importer be liable under section 2(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

An importer may be liable where they import the product into the UK from outside the UK in the course of business in order to supply it to another person.

Who is the producer of a manufactured product under section 1(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The producer of a manufactured product is its manufacturer.

Who is the producer of a product that has been won or abstracted under section 1(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The producer is the person who won or abstracted the product.

Who is the producer where a product’s essential characteristics result from a process carried out by someone?

The producer is the person who carried out the process responsible for the product’s essential characteristics.

How may agricultural produce fall within the producer definition under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A person who carries out the process responsible for the produce’s essential characteristics may be treated as its producer.

When can a supplier become liable under section 2(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A supplier may become liable if the injured person requests producer or importer details within a reasonable time and neither party can identify the producer or importer.

What must a claimant do before relying on section 2(3) against a supplier of a defective product?

The claimant must request identifying details of the producer or importer within a reasonable time.

Why can a supplier become liable under section 2(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Supplier liability prevents a claimant from being left without a defendant where the producer or importer cannot be identified.

How are multiple defendants liable under section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Multiple defendants are jointly and severally liable.

What does joint and several liability mean under section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The claimant may recover the full amount from any one liable defendant, leaving the defendants to resolve contributions between themselves.

What standard is associated with manufacturers in a negligence claim involving a defective product?

A manufacturer is judged against the standard of a reasonably competent manufacturer.

Who may bring a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Anyone who suffers qualifying damage caused by the defect may bring a claim.

Does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 define the term “consumer”?

No. The Act does not provide a definition of consumer for these claims.

Must a claimant have purchased the defective product to claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

No. Liability is not limited to purchasers of the product.

Must a claimant have personally used the defective product to claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

No. Anyone suffering qualifying damage caused by the defect may claim, even if they did not purchase or use it.

Why are business losses generally excluded from Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims?

Property damage is recoverable only where the property was ordinarily intended and actually intended by the claimant for private use, occupation or consumption.

What does section 4(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 provide as a defence?

The defendant has a defence if the defect did not exist in the product at the relevant time.

What is the state-of-scientific-and-technical-knowledge defence under section 4(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The producer has a defence if scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was insufficient for a producer of products of that description to be expected to discover the defect while the products were under their control.

Does the section 4(1)(e) development-risks defence concern an inability to discover or an inability to fix a defect?

It concerns an inability to discover the defect, not merely an inability to fix it.

What must a producer show under section 4(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The producer must show that the state of scientific and technical knowledge did not permit a producer of that product description reasonably to discover the defect.

Can contributory negligence reduce damages under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

Yes. Section 6(4) permits contributory negligence to reduce the claimant’s damages.

Can liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 be excluded by a contractual term or notice?

No. Section 7 prohibits exemption clauses seeking to exclude liability under the Act.

What is the primary limitation period for a Consumer Protection Act 1987 claim?

The claim must generally be brought within three years of the later of the damage occurring or the claimant becoming, or reasonably being expected to become, aware of the damage.

Which provision sets the three-year limitation period for Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims?

Section 11A(4) of the Limitation Act 1980 sets the three-year period.

When does the three-year limitation period begin if the claimant discovers the damage after it occurred?

It begins from the later date when the claimant became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage.

What is the ten-year long-stop period for Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims?

No claim may be brought more than ten years after the defendant put the product into circulation.

Which provision imposes the ten-year long stop for Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims?

Section 11A(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 imposes the ten-year long stop.

Is the ten-year long stop for Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims subject to later discovery of the damage?

No. The ten-year long stop is an absolute defence once the period has expired.

How does liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 differ from negligence regarding proof of fault?

The Act imposes strict liability, whereas negligence requires proof that the defendant fell below the required standard of care.

Is foreseeability of harm required to establish liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

No. The claimant does not need to establish foreseeability of harm under the statutory strict-liability claim.

What causation requirement applies under the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

The claimant must show that the damage was caused wholly or partly by the defect.

How is statutory causation under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 simpler than negligence causation?

The statutory question is whether the defect caused the damage wholly or partly, without requiring proof of fault or foreseeability.

Is pure economic loss generally recoverable under either the Consumer Protection Act 1987 or negligence?

No. Pure economic loss is not generally recoverable under either route.

What duty does a manufacturer owe to the final purchaser under negligence principles?

A manufacturer owes the final purchaser a duty to take reasonable care not to cause injury through a defective product.

Does a manufacturer’s negligence duty extend beyond the person who purchased the product?

Yes. It may extend to other users and to third parties who foreseeably come into contact with the product.

What did Donoghue v Stevenson establish about manufacturers’ duties?

Donoghue v Stevenson established that a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer even without a contract between them.

What did Stennett v Hancock establish about third parties injured by defective products?

Stennett v Hancock held that a manufacturer may owe a duty to third parties who foreseeably come into contact with the product.

What happened in Stennett v Hancock?

A wheel fell from a lorry and injured a pedestrian, who was owed a duty despite not being the purchaser or user of the lorry.

Can a person who repairs or services a product owe a duty of care in negligence?

Yes. A repairer or servicer may owe a duty to those foreseeably harmed by careless work.

What did Haseldine v CA Daw establish about product repairers?

Haseldine v CA Daw established that a person servicing or repairing a product may be liable in negligence for defects arising from that work.

Can a supplier or distributor owe a duty to inspect a product for defects?

Yes. A supplier or distributor may owe a duty where a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect.

What did Malfroot v Noxal Ltd establish about suppliers and distributors?

Malfroot v Noxal Ltd established that a supplier or distributor may be liable where the defect would have been discovered through reasonable inspection.

How is breach assessed in a negligence claim involving a defective product?

Breach is assessed using the ordinary negligence factors, with the central question being whether the manufacturer exercised reasonable care and skill.

Does the presence of a defect automatically prove negligence by a manufacturer?

Not necessarily, but the existence of the defect will often provide strong evidence that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care and skill.

What causation rules apply to a negligence claim involving a defective product?

The ordinary principles of factual and legal causation apply.

When may a manufacturer remain liable despite an opportunity for an intermediate inspection?

A manufacturer may remain liable if they had no reason to expect that an intermediate inspection would take place.

What did Haseldine v Daw establish about intermediate inspections in product-negligence claims?

Haseldine v Daw indicates that a manufacturer remains liable where they had no reason to contemplate that an intermediary would inspect the product before use.

How can an intermediate inspection affect a manufacturer’s liability in negligence?

A reasonably expected inspection may affect causation by identifying and preventing the defect before the claimant is harmed.

How can a warning affect causation in a defective-product negligence claim?

A clear warning to test or use the product in a particular way may break the chain of causation if the warning is ignored.

What did Holmes v Ashford establish about warnings and product liability?

Holmes v Ashford established that ignoring a warning about how to test or use a product may absolve the manufacturer by breaking the chain of causation.

What is the key difference between a Consumer Protection Act 1987 claim and a negligence claim involving a defective product?

The statutory claim focuses on whether the product was defective and caused damage, while negligence focuses on whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill.