Product liability - Duty of care of manufacturers

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 If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate.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

Product liability is a key area of tort law that ensures manufacturers are responsible for product safety. For those preparing for the SQE1 FLK1 exam, a solid understanding of this topic is essential, covering the principles of negligence, statutory duties under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and how the duty of care has changed over time. This article explores these ideas and their practical applications in today’s legal field.

Duty of Care and Negligence in Product Liability

Central to product liability is the concept of duty of care. This was established in the landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, introducing the "neighbour principle," which transformed manufacturers' responsibilities to consumers.

The Neighbour Principle and Its Development

In Donoghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin established that manufacturers owe a duty to “neighbours”—not just buyers, but anyone potentially affected by their products. This principle has been further developed to expand its application.

To prove negligence in product liability, four elements must be shown:

  1. Duty of Care: The manufacturer's legal responsibility to maintain reasonable care.
  2. Breach of Duty: Failure to meet this standard through action or omission.
  3. Causation: A direct link between the breach and the damage incurred.
  4. Damage: Actual harm or loss from the breach.

Defining the Duty of Care

The approach to establishing a duty of care has changed since Donoghue v. Stevenson. In Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, a three-stage test was introduced:

  1. Foreseeability of harm
  2. Proximity between the parties
  3. Fairness, justice, and reasonableness of imposing a duty

This test is especially important in new situations where a duty is unclear.

Causation: An Essential Element

Proving causation can be challenging. The "but for" test asks if the harm would have occurred "but for" the breach. In complex cases, courts recognize this test's limits.

The idea of "material contribution" has gained attention, particularly when multiple causes are involved. In Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, it was enough to show that each employer’s actions raised the risk of harm.

Statutory Liability: Consumer Protection Act 1987

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) introduced strict liability for defective products, representing a shift from fault-based negligence.

Key Provisions of the CPA

Under the CPA:

  1. Producers are accountable for damage from defective products.
  2. A product is defective if it fails safety expectations.
  3. The claimant must prove defect and causation, but not fault.

Defenses Under the CPA

Manufacturers can use several defenses provided by the Act:

  1. Development risks defense: The defect was undiscoverable due to existing scientific knowledge.
  2. Regulatory compliance: The defect arose from following required regulations.
  3. Component defense: The defect came from the design of the final product using the component.

Common Law Negligence and Statutory Liability

While the CPA simplifies claims, negligence remains relevant in product liability cases. Claimants might pursue both routes for distinct benefits:

  1. Negligence allows for recovery of economic loss, which the CPA does not cover.
  2. The CPA enforces a ten-year limit on claims, whereas negligence follows standard periods.

Contemporary Issues in Product Liability

Technological Advances and New Risks

Rapid tech innovation introduces challenges. Autonomous vehicles raise questions about liability among manufacturers, software developers, and users.

With AI and machine learning, the opaque nature of algorithms complicates defining defectiveness and foreseeability assessments.

Supply Chain Challenges

Global supply chains add complexity to liability. In Howmet Ltd v. Economy Devices Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 847, the Court of Appeal considered the extent of a component manufacturer's duty to warn about risks when integrated into larger systems.

Post-Sale Responsibilities

Manufacturers' duties extend beyond the sale. In Wilkes v. DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB), the ongoing duty to monitor and address product performance was emphasized.

Practical Applications and Case Studies

Case Study 1: Pharmaceutical Product Liability

For a new drug with unexpected side effects:

  • Negligence: Liability if inadequate trials or ignored warnings were involved.
  • CPA Liability: Strict liability applies, but development risks defense might be invoked.
  • Post-Sale Duty: The company's handling of new evidence is significant, with liability for delayed warnings or recalls.

Case Study 2: Autonomous Vehicle Accident

When an autonomous vehicle causes an accident:

  • Negligence: Possible liability for the vehicle manufacturer, software developer, and component suppliers.
  • CPA Liability: The vehicle could be seen as defective if it doesn’t meet reasonable expectations.
  • Causation: Determining whether a defect or external factors caused the accident can be complex.

Conclusion

Product liability law changes with technological advancements and consumer expectations. For SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates, appreciating both common law negligence and statutory liability is essential. Key points include:

  1. The role of the "neighbour principle" in defining manufacturers' responsibilities.
  2. The four components needed to establish negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damage.
  3. The Caparo test’s relevance in identifying duty of care in new contexts.
  4. The impact of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and its main defenses.
  5. The ongoing role of negligence claims beside CPA liability.
  6. Challenges arising from tech advances and complex supply chains.
  7. The importance of managing post-sale duties in modern product liability.

Proficiency in these aspects prepares candidates for complex exam questions and real-world legal challenges.