Deck 12: Product Liability

Question 1

Which of the following best describes the narrow ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] in relation to product liability?

A) Manufacturers can only be liable when their products are dangerous.
B) Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to take care during the production of their products.
C) Manufacturers can only be liable to consumers if they have a contract with them.

Answer 1

B

Question 2

It is only possible to recover the cost of replacing a faulty item by taking a claim in contract law.

Answer 2

True
Explanation: The recovery of the cost of replacement is deemed to be a 'pure economic loss' for the purposes of both claims in negligence and under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and, as such, is unrecoverable via those routes. To find out or recap what would happen in contract law in this situation see the special section on contract in the Tort Law online resources for chapter 12.

Question 3

Which of the following statements form part of the rationale behind a move towards imposing strict liability on manufacturers for defective products?
Please select all that apply.

A) The manufacturer created the product and therefore created the hazard or harm.
B) The manufacturer is engaged in a profit-driven exercise and should take the risk of liability that comes with it.
C) The manufacturer is in the best position to insure against the risks of any hazards or harms attached to their products.
D) Innovation and competitiveness in the market between manufacturers should be discouraged.
E) It would be an incentive to manufacturers to take all possible safety precautions during the design and manufacturing
Processes.

Answer 3

A,B,C,E

Question 4

What claims can be made under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Please select all that apply.

A) Claims for personal injury caused by a defective product
B) Claims for the cost of replacement of a defective product
C) Claims for damage to other property caused by a defective product
D) Claims for death caused by a defective product

Question 5

When is a product 'defective' under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?

A) When it is dangerous
B) When the product is not as safe as it would be reasonably expected to be
C) When it doesn't come with a warning or instructions

Question 6

In which of the following cases was the product in question found to be defective?
Please select all that apply.

A) Worsley v Tambrands [2000]
B) Abouzaid v Mothercare [2000]
C) Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2001]
D) A and others v National Blood Authority [2001]
E) Bogle and others v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002]
F) Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006]
G) Hufford v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd [2014]
H) Gee and others v DePuy International Ltd [2018]

Question 7

In Commission of the European Union v United Kingdom (EC v UK) [1997] the European Court of Justice was concerned with the fact that there were not enough successful cases under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in the UK.

Question 8

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 3

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Question 9

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 2

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Question 10

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 4

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Question 11

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 5

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for