- Created by: Sahar
- Created on: 02-02-15 12:16
Donoghue v Stevenson: a manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the consumer of those goods, when he intends those goods to reach the consumer in the form in which they left the factory, and without any further examinations or prep by any third party.
Stennett v Hancock- lorry tyre, Claimant other than consumer can claim. Defendant was not manufacturer but repairer
Fisher- cleaning bottle. Defendant other than manufacturer may be liable - retailer
Anyone who is involved in supplying goods, and whose actions might reasonably foreseeably affect the consumer, owes a duty
Defendant acted as a reasonable manufacturer?
Faulty manufacturing process- difficult to prove. courts prepared to find liability from clear facts
Grant v Australian knitting mills- under pants left factory with sulphites- negligence present somewhere
intermediate examination- should check standed before it reaches claimant if know no third party will check Donoghue v Stevenson - snail
Griffiths- grinding machine, defendant had no reason to believe it would be checked
Instructions and warning labels:
Fisher v Harold- no label of dangers to eyes
Kubach v Hollands -manufacturer supplied with warning, retailer supplied without, claimant could claim against retailier not manufacturer
Causation- claimant shows on 'balance of probabilities'
Evans v triplex safety glass- time between purchase, strain in attachment of glass, and something else other than defect could have caused the break
Calimant can recover for personal injuries and damage to other property caused by defect cannot claim for value of defective goods or repairs- (pure economic loss)
Muirhead v ITS- claim for lobsters not tank
Aswan engineering- component items of defect as 'other property', or damage to goods caused by defective packaging
Defences- consent, contributory negligence-Griffiths lost 20% on grounds injuries would be less if grabbed machine with two hands