Product liability - Defences under the Act

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 If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate.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) imposes strict liability for defective products, heavily influencing manufacturers' legal duties. For SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates, understanding the statutory defences under this Act is essential. These defences can protect manufacturers from liability and are key to understanding product liability law. This article explores these defences through case law and practical applications, providing the knowledge necessary for exam success and legal practice.

Statutory Defences Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Compliance with Legal Requirements (Section 4(1)(a))

This defence shields manufacturers when a product defect arises from meeting legal obligations. It highlights the conflict between regulatory compliance and product safety.

Key considerations:

  • The defect must solely result from following specific legal mandates.
  • General compliance with industry standards doesn't suffice.
  • Courts interpret this defence narrowly.

Case example: In Worsley v Tambrands Ltd [2000] PIQR P95, compliance with EU labelling did not defend against failing to warn about toxic shock syndrome. This case highlights the defence’s limited reach and strict court scrutiny.

Non-Supply of the Product (Section 4(1)(b) and (c))

This defence applies if the defendant proves they didn’t supply the product or the supply wasn’t business-related.

Critical elements:

  • 'Supply' covers sale, hire, loan, or gift under the CPA.
  • The business context is important; personal transactions might be exempt.

Example: A manufacturer could use this defence if counterfeit versions caused harm, proving they didn’t supply those items.

Non-Existence of Defect at Supply (Section 4(1)(d))

Manufacturers can avoid liability by showing the defect wasn't present at supply.

Key aspects:

  • The manufacturer bears the burden of proof.
  • Detailed quality control and supply chain records are essential.

Case study: In Lexus v Russell [2000] All ER (D) 1450, a manufacturer successfully argued a steering defect didn’t exist at the time of supply, stressing the importance of quality control.

Development Risks Defence (Section 4(1)(e))

This contentious defence, or 'state of the art' defence, applies when scientific and technical knowledge couldn't reveal the defect at the time of supply.

Key considerations:

  • The test is objective, considering the highest scientific knowledge available.
  • Not limited to the defendant's industry.
  • Courts construe this defence narrowly.

Landmark case: A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289 restricted this defence’s scope. The court ruled that known risks, even if unquantifiable, invalidate the defence, affecting innovative industries.

Component Defects (Section 4(1)(f))

This defence assists component manufacturers if defects result from the final product's design or incorrect instructions.

Key points:

  • Liability shifts to the final product manufacturer in certain cases.
  • The component must be defect-free when supplied.

Example: A brake pad manufacturer may use this defence if their product, though compliant, was misused or improperly installed by the final manufacturer.

Practical Points and Exam Relevance

Understanding these defences is vital for SQE1 FLK1 candidates, forming the basis of product liability litigation strategy. Key considerations include:

  1. Burden of Proof: Unlike negligence claims, defendants must prove these statutory defences.
  2. Interplay with Negligence: Though the CPA imposes strict liability, negligence principles inform court interpretations of defences, especially in 'development risks' cases.
  3. Policy Considerations: Courts balance consumer protection against innovation and business needs, as seen in the narrow application of the development risks defence.
  4. Evidential Requirements: Success often relies on thorough documentation and expert testimony, notably for 'non-existence of defect' and 'development risks' defences.
  5. Jurisdictional Differences: While the CPA aligns with EU directives, post-Brexit changes may alter future interpretations, requiring attention to legal updates.

Advanced Case Study: Pharmaceutical Product Liability

Consider a scenario where a pharmaceutical company faces claims for a new antibiotic causing unforeseen liver damage in some patients.

  1. Compliance with Legal Requirements: The company might argue that they followed all trial and approval protocols. However, as in Worsley, regulatory compliance may not suffice if the risk was foreseeable.

  2. Development Risks Defence: This primary defence would argue the liver damage risk was undiscoverable with available knowledge. Success would depend on:

    • Proving no similar effects occurred in comparable medications.
    • Demonstrating the most advanced testing protocols were used.
    • Showing the risk was genuinely unforeseeable.

  3. Non-Existence of Defect at Supply: This could apply if evidence suggests damage resulted from long-term use or unforeseen interactions.

The court would examine research methods, risk assessments, and surveillance efforts. The case would impact pharmaceutical innovation and liability standards.

Conclusion

The defences under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 balance consumer rights with product development challenges. For SQE1 FLK1 candidates, understanding these defences is vital for both exams and legal careers. The blend of strict liability principles with these defences accentuates the complexity of product liability law.

Key points to remember:

  1. The CPA provides five main defences against product liability claims.
  2. Each defence has specific requirements, often narrowly interpreted by courts.
  3. Case law is crucial for understanding how these defences apply.
  4. The burden of proof lies with the defendant.
  5. Policy considerations, like balancing protection and innovation, influence court decisions.
  6. Post-Brexit, staying informed on legal changes is essential as interpretations may shift.

As case law and regulations evolve, particularly with technological advances, the ability to analyze and apply these defences remains a crucial skill for future legal professionals.