Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 847

Facts

• The case involved a fire suppression system manufactured by Economy Devices Ltd and installed at Howmet Ltd's premises.
• The system was intended to detect and extinguish fires in industrial ovens but failed due to a defect in its design, resulting in a significant fire and damage to Howmet Ltd's property.
• Howmet Ltd alleged breach of implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, claiming the product was not fit for purpose nor of satisfactory quality.
• Economy Devices Ltd defended itself by asserting that Howmet Ltd was aware of the defect yet continued to use the system, arguing this knowledge should limit or exclude their liability.

Issues

1. Whether a claimant's knowledge of a defect in a product and continued use limits or absolves the manufacturer’s liability for resulting harm.
2. Whether Howmet Ltd’s actions, after becoming aware of the defect, amounted to contributory negligence.
3. Whether the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk applied, preventing Howmet Ltd from claiming compensation.
4. Whether Economy Devices Ltd discharged its duty of care by providing adequate warnings about the defect and risk.
5. Whether liability should be apportioned given Howmet Ltd’s knowledge and actions.

Decision

• The court held that Howmet Ltd’s awareness of the defect did not automatically absolve Economy Devices Ltd of liability.
• It found that contributory negligence only arises if the claimant's actions were both causative and unreasonable, and in this case, Howmet Ltd’s continued use was not unreasonable due to lack of reasonable alternatives.
• The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk was rejected; mere knowledge of the defect did not equate to full acceptance of the risk.
• Economy Devices Ltd was found to have breached its duty of care by failing to address the defect and provide adequate warnings.
• The defendant was held primarily responsible; Howmet Ltd’s knowledge did not justify reducing damages.

Legal Principles

• A claimant’s knowledge of a defect in a product is relevant to contributory negligence but does not act as a full defense; reasonableness must always be assessed in context.
• Voluntary assumption of risk requires clear evidence of full understanding and acceptance of the risk, not just awareness of a defect.
• Manufacturers owe a duty of care under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to ensure product safety and must provide adequate warnings about known defects and associated risks.
• Liability cannot be shifted from manufacturer to user solely on the basis of user knowledge if the user had no reasonable alternative but to continue using the product.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that a manufacturer’s liability for defective products is not eliminated simply because the user is aware of the defect; contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk only limit liability where the claimant’s actions are unreasonable or amount to true acceptance of risk. The judgment emphasizes that the primary responsibility for product safety rests with manufacturers, who must provide adequate warnings and cannot rely solely on user knowledge to avoid liability.