Question 1

Which of the following best describes the narrow ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] in relation to product liability?&#10;A) Manufacturers can only be liable when their products are dangerous.&#10;B) Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to take care during the production of their products.&#10;C) Manufacturers can only be liable to consumers if they have a contract with them.

Accepted Answer

The narrow ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] establishes that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, which means they must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which they can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure their consumers. This case laid the foundation for the modern law of negligence, emphasizing that a duty of care is owed even in the absence of a contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer.

Question 2

It is only possible to recover the cost of replacing a faulty item by taking a claim in contract law.

Accepted Answer

The recovery of the cost of replacement is deemed to be a 'pure economic loss' for the purposes of both claims in negligence and under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and, as such, is unrecoverable via those routes. To find out or recap what would happen in contract law in this situation see the special section on contract in the Tort Law online resources for chapter 12.

Question 3

Which of the following statements form part of the rationale behind a move towards imposing strict liability on manufacturers for defective products?
Please select all that apply.

A) The manufacturer created the product and therefore created the hazard or harm.
B) The manufacturer is engaged in a profit-driven exercise and should take the risk of liability that comes with it.
C) The manufacturer is in the best position to insure against the risks of any hazards or harms attached to their products.
D) Innovation and competitiveness in the market between manufacturers should be discouraged.
E) It would be an incentive to manufacturers to take all possible safety precautions during the design and manufacturing
Processes.

A,B,C,E

Accepted Answer

The rationale behind imposing strict liability on manufacturers for defective products includes that the manufacturer created the product and therefore created the hazard or harm; the manufacturer is engaged in a profit-driven exercise and should take the risk of liability that comes with it; the manufacturer is in the best position to insure against the risks of any hazards or harms attached to their products; and it would be an incentive to manufacturers to take all possible safety precautions during the design and manufacturing processes. However, there is no justification to suggest that innovation and competitiveness in the market between manufacturers should be discouraged.

Question 4

What claims can be made under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?
Please select all that apply.

A) Claims for personal injury caused by a defective product
B) Claims for the cost of replacement of a defective product
C) Claims for damage to other property caused by a defective product
D) Claims for death caused by a defective product

Accepted Answer

Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 allows for claims for personal injury, damage to other property, and death caused by a defective product. It does not cover claims for the cost of replacement of a defective product, which might be covered under other laws or regulations.

Question 5

When is a product 'defective' under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987?&#10;A) When it is dangerous&#10;B) When the product is not as safe as it would be reasonably expected to be&#10;C) When it doesn't come with a warning or instructions

Accepted Answer

According to Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a product is considered defective if it is not as safe as it would be reasonably expected to be. This means that the product does not meet the standards that consumers expect it to meet in terms of safety. A product may be defective even if it is not necessarily dangerous or does not come with a warning or instructions.

Question 6

In which of the following cases was the product in question found to be defective?
Please select all that apply.

A) Worsley v Tambrands [2000]
B) Abouzaid v Mothercare [2000]
C) Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2001]
D) A and others v National Blood Authority [2001]
E) Bogle and others v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002]
F) Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006]
G) Hufford v Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd [2014]
H) Gee and others v DePuy International Ltd [2018]

Accepted Answer

The answer of In which of the following cases was...

Question 7

In Commission of the European Union v United Kingdom (EC v UK) [1997] the European Court of Justice was concerned with the fact that there were not enough successful cases under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in the UK.

Accepted Answer

The statement is false. In EC v UK the issue for the European Court of Justice was to decide whether the UK had properly implemented the European Directive on product liability. The Commission had raised concerns that the wording of Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which implemented the Directive) in relation to the 'developments risk defence' allowed for a looser and more subjective interpretation of the defence than was intended in the wording of the Directive. The outcome of the case was that the wording of the Act must be treated as being the same as the wording of the Directive, and that the key to when the defence would be able to be used would be based on whether or not the defendant would have had 'accessible' information available to them about the safety or otherwise of the product.

Question 8

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 3

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Accepted Answer

Section 3 defines what is meant by a 'defect' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Question 9

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 3

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Accepted Answer

Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 defines who can be sued under the Act, including manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers.

Question 10

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 3

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Accepted Answer

The answer of Match the section of the Consumer Protection...

Question 11

Match the section of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 with the issue to which it relates.
-Section 3

A) Definition of 'defect'
B) Identification of who can be sued
C) Defences
D) Identification of the harms that can be sued for

Accepted Answer

The answer of Match the section of the Consumer Protection...

Deck 12: Product Liability