Product liability

Product liability

More than one cause of action might be advanced by a claimant. For example, breach of contract, negligence and a claim for breach of statutory duty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987).

These causes of action are not exclusive and claimants can institute a claim under whichever cause or causes of action apply to their case. For example, a claimant may issue a claim for breach of contract but there may be tactical advantages in adding a manufacturer into the proceedings as a co-defendant based on a claim in negligence or under statute. The manufacturer will have to disclose information and there may be exclusions or limitations of liability in any intermediate contracts in the supply chain.

For an overview of the different types of action, see Practice Notes: Product liability—causes of action and Consumer protection for defective or dangerous products—legal bases.

Claims in contract

A defective product claim based on a breach of contract can be more straightforward than a claim brought in negligence. This is because the claimant will just need to prove that the product is not of a satisfactory

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Interim payments where medical evidence is incomplete (HDL v Butt and another)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant was an infant passenger in a car driven by the defendant. He lost control, and the car overturned. The claimant suffered a serious traumatic brain injury. The claimant was severely disabled after the accident. However, he suffered from a chromosomal abnormality which might be the cause of much of his disability, rather than injuries sustained in the accident. Liability was not in dispute. The claimant applied for an interim payment towards further care cost. The defendant refused further payment on the basis that there was a substantial risk of an overpayment. The medical evidence, at the time of this application, was incomplete and disputed. The issue was whether the court had to do the best it could with that evidence, or whether it should expect a sufficient overall level of evidence before payment would be ordered. The court found the latter. Written by Robert Parkin, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Home Office amends Crime and Policing Bill to remove child sexual abuse claim limitation periods

The Home Office has amended clause 87 of the Crime and Policing Bill to remove the three-year limitation period for civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse, thereby implementing a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. The clause inserts a new section 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980, providing that such claims must be dismissed if the defendant satisfies the court that a fair hearing cannot take place. The government has further amended the clause to remove an additional ground for dismissal based on ‘substantial prejudice’, following concerns raised in Committee, and considers that the retained fair hearing safeguard appropriately protects defendants’ rights while giving effect to the Inquiry’s recommendation.

Practical considerations when seeking an extension of time for the claim form (Lloyds Developments Ltd (in administration) v Accor SA)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Eyre allowed the defendant’s application and set aside the order extending time for service. He held that the claimant had failed to establish a good reason for extending time to serve the claim form. The delays relied upon were either tactical or self-inflicted and did not amount to genuine obstacles to service within the six-month period. In particular, the desire to align pleadings with related proceedings and the time required for translation were matters going to the particulars of claim, not to the claim form itself, which could and should have been served in time. The judge also placed significant weight on limitation. The extension carried service beyond the expiry of the limitation period, thereby potentially depriving the defendant of an arguable limitation defence. That consequence had not been properly drawn to the court’s attention on the without-notice application, and reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) was far from straightforward.

Dependants entitled to recover replacement cost of deceased farmer’s work despite no significant profit (Denning v Stone)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: A deceased farmer’s dependants could recover the full gross cost of replacing his work on the family farm under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976), even though the farm made no significant profit. Written by Duncan McNair, barrister at 3PB Barristers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News