Lecture 12:

Product Liability
z

Ms Nurul Atikah
Rosli/Stephen Sesaiah
 6.1 Introduction
z

Industries using AI such as marketing, small business and retail will

involve increased connectivity and integration.

For example, when IR 4.0 relies on the use of robots or AI, if

damage happened, robot cannot be held responsible for the
decisions they make nor can they compensate victims. Therefore,
it will be necessary to adapt civil liability to ascertain
responsibilities lies on whom. It could be custodian, manufacturer
or distributor of property.
 6.2 Product Liability
z
PRODUCT
LIABILITY
Body of law that provides
for compensation for
physical injuries and
property damage resulting
from defective and
unreasonably dangerous
products and from the
failure of a manufacturer
or seller to warn the
consumer of product
dangers.
. failure to warn consumer
LIABILITY
Against any or all parties
1. Design defect along the chain of
- design flaw that caused manufacture to the
danger supply of any product for
damage or harm caused by
2. Manufacturing defect that product.
- during construction and
production • manufacturer of
- flaw in composition of component parts
raw material • an assembling
manufacturer
3. Defect in marketing • wholesaler\retail store
- improper instruction and owner.
of danger
.
 6.3 Civil actions for
z product liability

3. Consumer Protection

A consumer may seek

2. Tort Law remedy against the
manufacturer where there is
any breach of law under the
Liability of defective product Consumer Protection Act
1. Contract Law may arise under tort, where 1999
tortious liability based on
fault and damages caused
The right of the consumer to to others.
sue manufacturer for
breach of contract Product liability will arises
where there was negligence
of manufacturer to
consumer.
 6.4 Product Liability Under
z
Contract Law

Privity of contract Daniels and Daniels v White

Sons [1938] 4 ALL ER 258

Only those who have privity

The buyer (husband) had sued the seller
to a contract have the right to
for defective lemon drink. The wife who
claim
only consumed the drink, sued the
manufacturer.
No one outside the
contractual agreement is
The court held that only the husband
allowed to file a claim
succeed in his claim based on contractual
against a party to the contract
relationship between him and the seller.
even if he was injured
because of that breach
This can be injustice to non-buyer
 6.5 Product Liability Under
z
Tort Law

Tort law is to
redress of wrongs
or injustice (other To succeed, consumer
has to prove four
than breaches of elements of negligence
contract) by The law of
1. Duty of care
means of a civil negligence has
2. Breach of duty of
action brought by been developed to care
the victim give way for non- 3. Causation
buyer to claim for 4. Reasonably foresee
a damage caused
by defective
product
 6.5 Product Liability Under
z
Tort Law
1. Duty of Care
The test of “neighbour principle”
In other words, the plaintiff is someone that can be
affected by the action of the Defendant
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
The Plaintiff’s friend bought a ginger ale for her. She
poured the ginger ale to the glass and discovered a
decomposed snail. She suffered shock and stomach
ailment.
Anyone other than purchaser can be injured by this
action, when the manufacturer failed to exercise duty
of care.
2. Breach of Duty
If a reasonable man in his position, whether they will do
the same thing or not
Use the standard of reasonably skilled person in that
profession
Phillips v Whiteley Ltd [1938] 1 All ER 566
The defendant was a jeweller. The plaintiff went to have her
ears pierced. The defendant performed the procedure in a
white-washed room, dipped the instrument in disinfectant,
passed them through a flame and placed them under
running water. The plaintiff contracted a disease after the
procedure.
The standard of care required of the defendant with a
skilled jeweller not medical practitioner.
 6.5 Product Liability Under
z
Tort Law
3. Causation
There must be connection between the defendant’s
breach of duty with the plaintiff’s injuries.
Whether the defendant is the one that caused the
injury
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]
The plaintiff was a brick worker and he was exposed
to brick dust during works. Due to inadequate
washing facilities, the plaintiff always cycled home
covered with dust. He later contracted skin disease.
Held: the defendant was liable. Due to its breach of
duty to provide adequate washing facilities, it
increases the chance of getting skin disease to the
plaintiff.
4. Reasonably Foresee
Even though the plaintiff can show the causal link
between breach of duty and damages, the plaintiff
must prove the damages is something that the
defendant can anticipate or foresee.
Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778
The defendant’s employee dug a hole in a pavement
while doing repair works and did not close the area
properly. The plaintiff, a blind man, fell into the hole
and injured.
Held: the risk was foreseeable and any reasonable
person can assume that failure to close it properly will
cause injury to others.
 6.6 Product Liability Under
z
Consumer Protection
Strict product liability is provided The claimant only has to prove
under Part X of the Consumer three things: the damage, the
Protection Act 1999. defect in the product and the causal
link between the two
Producers will be liable for any loss
or injury suffered by the consumer
even if careful precaution steps have The CPA does not require for proof
been taken during the process of that the defect caused is caused by
production. the producer or manufacturer.

 Not every person connected with the product can be liable.

 The persons liable can be divided into two categories, primary

Who is defendant and secondary defendant

liable?
 Primary defendant – Section 68(1) – producer of the product, own
brander or importer
 Secondary defendant – manufacturer of the component

 Section 68(6) They can be jointly or severally liable

 6.6 Product Liability Under
z
Consumer Protection

1 2 3
DEFECT DAMAGE CAUSAL LINK
OR LOSS BETWEEN
Section 67(1)
defines defect in INCURRED DEFECT AND
a product if the DAMAGE
safety of the Section 66,
product is not as damage means The plaintiff
a person entitled death or must prove that
to expect personal injury his injuries
or any loss or were caused by
damage to the defect
A v National Blood Authority property
[2001] 3 All ER Foster v Biosil [2001] 59 BMLR
Defective burglar alarm which
The Plaintiff received a blood failed to operate and caused the The Plaintiff had a breast implant
transfusion but contaminated with theft of household contents in which she claimed that the
hepatitis C. product was defective as there
was leakage and caused her pain.
The court ruled that the plaintiff’s
right was to expect that the blood The court held that there was no
was free from any contamination. causal link between defect and
So the blood was defective. damage.
 6.6 Product Liability Under
S.72(1)(a)
z
Consumer Protection
The defect is due to
the compliance with S.72(1)(c)
any written law The defect did not
S.72(1)(b) exist in the product at
the relevant time
The producer did not S.72(1)(e)
at any time supply the
The defect wholly
defective product to
attributed to the
another person
S.72(1)(d) subsequent product
(final product)
The state of scientific
and technical
knowledge at that
time unable to
discover the defect

Defences against
product liability