Product liability - Consumer Protection Act 1987

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) is a major piece of product liability legislation in the UK, shifting from negligence-based to strict liability for defective goods. For SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates, a thorough understanding of this Act is key to navigating modern consumer protection and product safety laws. This article explores the CPA 1987, covering its main provisions, its relationship with European law, and practical outcomes through important case law.

Strict Liability Regime

The CPA 1987 established a strict liability framework for defective products, changing the approach to product liability in the UK.

Key Principles

  1. No Fault Requirement: Claimants don't need to prove negligence; showing a defect caused damage is enough.
  2. Consumer Protection Focus: The Act emphasizes consumer rights, addressing the power imbalance with producers.
  3. EU Law Alignment: Implements EU Directive 85/374/EEC, aligning with European standards (still relevant post-Brexit).

Effects on Producers and Suppliers

  • Greater focus on quality control and safety testing
  • Detailed product documentation and user guides
  • Improved risk assessment in supply chains

Defining Defects and Assessing Damage

Defect Definition

A product is considered defective under Section 3 of the CPA 1987 if "the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect," considering:

  1. Product Presentation
  2. Expected Use
  3. Time of Supply

Safety Expectation Test

The test is objective, based on general expectations, not individual consumer views or a risk-benefit analysis (A v National Blood Authority [2001]).

Damage Covered

  1. Death or personal injury
  2. Property damage (excluding the defective product) over £275, for private use

Identifying Responsible Parties

Primary Parties

  1. Producers (manufacturers of finished products, raw materials, and components)
  2. Own-branders
  3. Importers

Secondary Parties

  • Suppliers (if they fail to identify the producer or importer upon request)

Joint and Several Liability

Multiple parties can be held liable for the same damage, allowing the claimant full recovery from any one of them.

Available Defenses

Despite strict liability, there are defenses under the CPA 1987:

  1. Compliance with Mandatory Regulations
  2. No Defect at Supply
  3. Not Supplied in Course of Business
  4. Component Defense
  5. Development Risks Defense ("state of the art")

The Development Risks Defense allows a producer to argue no liability if the defect was undiscoverable given current scientific knowledge at the supply time. This defense has been narrowly interpreted by courts.

Case Law Analysis

A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289

  • Decided infected blood was defective under CPA 1987, even with undetectable risks
  • Rejected the development risks defense for known risks
  • Confirmed the objective test for defectiveness

Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB)

  • Stressed the objective nature of the defectiveness test
  • Clarified that expected safety levels must consider product nature, function, and intended use
  • Highlighted that not all risks make a product defective

Practical Applications

Example 1: Autonomous Vehicle Accident

An autonomous vehicle crashes due to software issues:

  • Vehicle manufacturer could be liable as the producer
  • Software developer might also be liable if the defect lies in the software
  • Claimants must establish defectiveness, not negligence
  • Development risks defense might apply if the defect was truly undiscoverable

Example 2: Contaminated Food Product

A consumer suffers food poisoning from a contaminated ready-meal:

  • Food manufacturer as primary liable party
  • Ingredient supplier potentially liable if contamination started there
  • Supermarket potentially liable if they fail to identify the producer
  • Consumer must establish defectiveness and causation, not negligence

Conclusion

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 signifies a major change in product liability law, strengthening consumer protection through a strict liability regime. For SQE1 FLK1 candidates, it is essential to understand:

  • The definition of defects and the safety expectation test
  • Identification of responsible parties and the scope of joint liability
  • Available defenses, especially the development risks defense
  • Key case law interpretations
  • Applying CPA 1987 principles to various product liability scenarios

The Act's continued importance post-Brexit and its influence on safety standards make it a critical area to study for aspiring solicitors. Understanding the CPA 1987 thoroughly prepares candidates to tackle complex product liability cases in both exams and future legal practice.