Overview
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) establishes a strict liability regime for defective products in the United Kingdom. Replacing the traditional negligence-based approach, this legislation means that a claimant does not need to prove that a producer was negligent, only that the product was defective and caused damage. The Act defines the responsibilities of producers, importers, and own-branders, outlining when they may be held liable. It implements European Union Directive 85/374/EEC, maintaining its significance even after Brexit.
The Strict Liability Framework
Under the CPA 1987, strict liability holds producers accountable for defects in their products without the need for claimants to prove negligence. This shift simplifies the process for consumers seeking compensation for harm caused by defective products.
Key Principles
-
No Fault Requirement: The Act eliminates the need to establish negligence. If a defective product causes damage, the producer is liable. For instance, if a household appliance malfunctions due to a manufacturing defect and injures someone, the injured party can claim compensation without demonstrating that the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care.
-
Consumer Protection Focus: The CPA 1987 is designed to protect consumers, acknowledging the imbalance between individuals and large manufacturers. It ensures that consumers can seek redress more easily when harmed by defective products.
-
Alignment with European Standards: The Act incorporates EU Directive 85/374/EEC into UK law, harmonizing product liability standards across Europe. Even after Brexit, the principles established by the CPA 1987 continue to influence UK product liability law.
Impact on Producers and Suppliers
Producers must ensure their products are safe, conducting rigorous quality control and providing clear instructions and warnings. Suppliers also have responsibilities, particularly in identifying the producer when needed.
Defining Defects and Measuring Damage
Understanding Defects
Section 3 of the CPA 1987 states that a product is defective if its safety is not what persons generally are entitled to expect. Factors influencing this assessment include:
-
Product Presentation: How the product is marketed, packaged, and any instructions or warnings provided.
-
Intended Use: The purposes for which the product was marketed, and any use that could reasonably be expected.
-
Time of Supply: The state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was supplied.
For example, if a child’s toy is marketed as suitable for all ages but contains small parts that present a choking hazard, it may be considered defective under the Act.
Applying the Safety Expectation Test
The "Safety Expectation Test" is objective, based on the expectations of the general public rather than expert opinion. In A v National Blood Authority [2001], the court held that consumers did not expect blood for transfusions to be contaminated, and thus the contaminated blood was defective.
Types of Damage Covered
The CPA 1987 covers:
-
Death or Personal Injury: Any harm suffered by individuals due to defective products.
-
Property Damage: Loss or damage to private property exceeding £275, excluding the defective product itself.
Suppose a defective washing machine causes a fire that damages a consumer’s home. The Act allows the consumer to claim for the property damage resulting from the defect.
Responsibility Under the Act
Who Is Liable?
-
Producers: Manufacturers of finished products, components, and raw materials.
-
Own-branders: Those who present themselves as the producers by placing their name or trademark on the product.
-
Importers: Entities importing products into the UK from outside the UK.
-
Suppliers: Retailers and distributors may be liable if they fail to identify the producer or importer when requested by a claimant.
Joint and Several Liability
Multiple parties can be held liable for the same damage. This means a claimant can recover all their losses from any one liable party, who can then seek contributions from others. For example, if a defective toaster causes injury, both the manufacturer of the toaster and the supplier of a faulty component might be jointly liable.
Defenses Available
Even under strict liability, certain defenses are available to producers:
-
Compliance with Legal Requirements: If the defect is due to compliance with mandatory regulations or legislation.
-
No Defect at Time of Supply: The producer can prove that the defect did not exist when the product was supplied.
-
Non-commercial Supply: The product was not supplied in the course of business, such as a private sale between individuals.
-
Component Defects: If the defect is due to the design of the final product in which the component was fitted, and not the component itself.
-
Development Risks Defense: The producer shows that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was not such that the defect could be discovered.
The Development Risks Defense
This defense is narrowly interpreted. In A v National Blood Authority [2001], the court rejected this defense where risks were known but unavoidable. Producers must show that the defect was undiscoverable even with the best possible scientific knowledge at the time.
Case Law Examples
A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289
In this case, claimants contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood transfusions. The court held the blood was defective under the CPA 1987 because consumers were entitled to expect that blood products would not be contaminated. The development risks defense was not accepted because the risk was known, even if unavoidable.
Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB)
This case involved a claim concerning a hip replacement component that fractured. The court emphasized that the defectiveness test is objective and must consider all the circumstances, including the benefits of the product and compliance with standards. The product was not deemed defective, illustrating that not all product failures result in liability under the Act.
Practical Applications
Scenario 1: Self-Driving Car Malfunction
An individual is injured when a self-driving car malfunctions due to a software defect. Under the CPA 1987:
- Liable Parties: The car manufacturer, the software developer, and possibly the importer if the software was sourced from abroad.
- Claimant's Burden: The claimant must show that the defect in the software caused the injury.
- Defenses: Producers might attempt to invoke the development risks defense if the defect was not discoverable at the time.
Scenario 2: Contaminated Food Product
A consumer becomes ill after consuming food contaminated due to a processing error:
- Liable Parties: The food manufacturer and any own-branders selling the product under their label.
- Supplier Liability: If the retailer cannot identify the producer, they may be held liable.
- Applicable Defenses: The producer may not have a viable defense if the contamination resulted from a defect present at the time of supply.
Conclusion
Strict liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 simplifies the process for consumers to claim compensation for harm caused by defective products. The Act intersects various legal concepts, holding producers accountable without the need to prove negligence and defining defects based on public expectations of safety. It outlines who may be liable—including producers, importers, and own-branders—and specifies defenses that may relieve liability under narrow circumstances.
The objective assessment of defects, as established in cases like A v National Blood Authority [2001], highlights the Act's emphasis on consumer protection. Conversely, cases such as Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd [2016] demonstrate that not all product failures constitute defects under the Act.
Understanding the interplay between strict liability, the definition of defects, the parties who may be held liable, and the available defenses allows for a comprehensive understanding of product liability under the CPA 1987 and its application in diverse scenarios involving consumer goods.
