Introduction
The precise legal definitions of 'defect' and 'product' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) are fundamental to understanding product liability law. Section 1(2) of the CPA 1987 offers a detailed definition of 'product', covering goods, electricity, and components, including raw materials. Concurrently, Section 3(1) outlines the criteria for a 'defect', focusing on the safety expectations of persons generally. A thorough examination of these definitions is essential for the application of product liability principles under both statutory law and common law negligence.
Defining 'Product' in Product Liability Law
Statutory Definition under CPA 1987
Section 1(2) of the CPA 1987 explains the definition of 'product' as follows:
"Any goods or electricity and... includes a product which is comprised in another product, whether by virtue of being a component part or raw material or otherwise."
This broad definition includes:
- Tangible Movable Items: All physical goods that can be moved.
- Electricity: Recognized as a product despite its intangible nature.
- Component Parts: Items that form part of a larger product.
- Raw Materials: Basic materials used in the creation of products.
Practical Considerations
An in-depth understanding of what constitutes a 'product' is essential. The following aspects merit attention:
-
Software and Digital Products: Although not explicitly mentioned in the CPA 1987, recent legal developments suggest that software, particularly when embedded in a physical item, may be regarded as a product. For instance, software essential to the functioning of machinery could fall under this definition.
-
Component Parts and Raw Materials: Manufacturers of individual components or suppliers of raw materials can be held liable if defects in these elements lead to a defective end product. Liability is not limited to the producer of the final product but extends to all parties in the supply chain contributing to the defect.
Understanding the scope of 'product' ensures accurate identification of potential defendants in product liability claims.
Defining 'Defect' in Product Liability Law
The Consumer Expectation Test
Section 3(1) of the CPA 1987 defines a 'defect' as existing in a product if:
"The safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect."
This objective test assesses the product against the legitimate safety expectations of the general public. Factors considered include:
- Presentation of the Product: Marketing, packaging, instructions, and warnings associated with the product.
- Expected Use: The purposes for which the product could reasonably be used, including any foreseeable misuse.
- Timing of Supply: The state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the product was supplied.
Key Case Law
-
A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289: This case emphasized that the assessment of a defect is based on the expectations of the public at large, not the manufacturer's viewpoint. The court held that consumers are entitled to expect that blood transfusions will not be contaminated with viruses, even if the risk was unavoidable at the time.
-
Wilkes v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB): The judgment highlighted that safety expectations can vary depending on the product's characteristics and intended use. It reinforced that the consumer expectation test is detailed and requires careful analysis of all relevant circumstances.
These cases illustrate how courts interpret 'defect' within the context of societal safety expectations.
Common Law Negligence in Product Liability
In addition to statutory provisions, common law principles of negligence apply to product liability cases. The key elements are:
- Duty of Care: Established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products.
- Breach of Duty: The claimant must prove that the manufacturer failed to meet the standard of care expected, resulting in a defective product.
- Causation: There must be a direct link between the breach of duty and the damage suffered.
- Foreseeable Damage: The type of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable as a result of the breach.
Differences from CPA 1987
Significant distinctions between common law negligence and the CPA 1987 include:
-
Burden of Proof: Under common law, the claimant must establish that the defendant was negligent. In contrast, the CPA 1987 focuses on the presence of a defect and causation, without needing to prove negligence.
-
Scope of Defendants: Common law may allow claims against parties not classified as 'producers' under the CPA 1987, potentially broadening the range of liable parties.
-
Recoverable Losses: Common law may permit recovery for pure economic loss in certain circumstances, whereas the CPA 1987 primarily addresses personal injury and damage to property.
Understanding both legal avenues is important for a comprehensive approach to product liability.
Defenses Under CPA 1987
Producers have several defenses available under the CPA 1987 to counter liability claims.
Development Risks Defense
Under Section 4(1)(e), known as the 'state of the art' defense, a producer is not liable if:
"The state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the product was put into circulation was not such that a producer... might be expected to have discovered the defect."
This defense applies when a defect was not discoverable due to the limitations of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of supply.
Case Reference:
- A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289: The court held that the development risks defense did not apply because the risk of viral contamination in blood was known, even if it was unavoidable. The defense is unavailable when the existence of the risk is known but cannot be mitigated.
Compliance with Mandatory Regulations Defense
Section 4(1)(a) provides a defense if the defect is due to compliance with legal requirements. If a product's defect results from adhering to mandatory regulations, the producer may not be held liable.
Other Statutory Defenses
-
Defect Did Not Exist at Time of Supply: Under Section 4(1)(d), if the producer proves that the product was not defective when they supplied it, they may avoid liability.
-
Non-Business Supply: Section 4(1)(b) indicates that if the product was not supplied in the course of a business, the producer may have a defense.
-
Non-Supply Defense: If the defendant did not supply the product, as per Section 4(1)(c), they cannot be held liable under the CPA 1987.
Contributory Negligence
While not a complete defense, contributory negligence can reduce the amount of damages payable. If the claimant's actions contributed to the harm suffered, the court may apportion responsibility accordingly.
Illustration:
A consumer misuses a product contrary to clear instructions, leading to injury. The court may find that the claimant's own negligence contributed to the damage.
Practical Applications
Example 1: Autonomous Vehicle Software Defect
An autonomous vehicle malfunctions due to a defect in its integrated software, causing an accident that results in injury.
Analysis:
- Product Classification: The vehicle, including its software, constitutes a 'product' under the CPA 1987.
- Defect Assessment: The malfunction is evaluated against the safety expectations of the general public. Consumers expect autonomous vehicles to operate safely under normal conditions.
- Potential Defenses: The producer might consider the development risks defense if the defect was undiscoverable with current scientific knowledge at the time of supply. However, if the risk was known or foreseeable, this defense would likely fail.
Example 2: Pharmaceutical Side Effects
A medication causes unforeseen adverse effects not warned about, leading to consumer harm.
Analysis:
- Product Classification: The medication is a 'product' within the meaning of the CPA 1987.
- Defect Assessment: The absence of warnings about the side effects may render the product defective, as consumers are entitled to expect safety information about potential risks.
- Potential Defenses: The development risks defense may be invoked if the side effects were not discoverable despite the prevailing scientific knowledge. Compliance with regulatory approvals could also be relevant, but may not absolve liability if safety expectations are unmet.
These examples illustrate how the definitions of 'product' and 'defect' are applied in practical contexts, reflecting the legal principles discussed.
Conclusion
The definitions of 'product' and 'defect' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are significant in the realm of product liability law. The Act's broad scope ensures that a wide array of items, from tangible goods to complex components, are included within the definition of a product. The objective assessment of a defect, through the consumer expectation test, focuses on the safety standards that the general public is entitled to anticipate.
A thorough understanding of these definitions is important for analyzing liability in cases involving defective products. The distinctions between statutory liability under the CPA 1987 and common law negligence significantly impact the approach to proving a claim and identifying potential defendants. Awareness of available defenses, such as the development risks defense, is essential for a comprehensive evaluation of liability.
Key cases like A v National Blood Authority and Donoghue v Stevenson provide fundamental understanding into how these legal concepts are interpreted and applied by the courts. The interplay between statutory provisions and judicial precedents shapes the field of product liability, emphasizing the necessity for meticulous analysis of each element involved.
By thoroughly examining the definitions and principles governing 'defect' and 'product', legal professionals can effectively address the complexities of product liability law, ensuring that duties are appropriately attributed and that consumer safety remains a priority.
