Product Liability Cases

?
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 05-04-17 00:52
Donoghue v Stevenson – Common law – duty of care
Case established the duty of care principle/the neighbour principle.
1 of 12
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills – common law – breach of duty
Underpants with chemicals in – breach in the duty of care.
2 of 12
Kubach v Hollands – common law – causation
The chain of causation is broken if there is opportunity for immediate inspection. The intermediary ignores a clear warning to examine the product before use.
3 of 12
Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals – what is a product?
What is a product extends to the packaging, labelling and safety instructions.
4 of 12
Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling Company – manufacturing defects
Bottles exploded. It is difficult for claimants injured by defective products to establish negligence.
5 of 12
Richardson v LRC - Statute CPA 1987 – What is a ‘defect’
Split condom. It could not be proven that the tear was to do with the defendants manufacturing negligence. A split was possible. D made no claim that the product was 100% reliable and safe.
6 of 12
Bogle v McDonalds – Statute CPA 1987 – What is a ‘defect’
coffee is spilt and injuries the claimant, argued that the cup and lid was defective because it did not offer a level of safety entitled to expect. Basic precautions were taken – know its hot.
7 of 12
Abouzaid –Statute CPA 1987 – What is a ‘defect’
what could the defendant have done to make the design better. What other designed are in existence, better designs were on the market and that’s what consumers expect.
8 of 12
A v The National Blood Authority – Statute CPA 1987 – what is a ‘defect’ – strict liability interpretation
blood is not manufactured – changed the terminology – classifying blood as a design defect. Consumers will probably have a degree of safety. The risk was known about – judge distinguished between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ products.
9 of 12
Griffiths v Arch Engineering Co – no intermediate examination – chance to examine.
C, a workman, injured by portable grinding tool he borrowed from D1, tool was owned by D2. No intermediate examination. D1 was liable since they had opportunity to examine the tool and didn’t.
10 of 12
Taylor v Rover Car Co Ltd – inspection revealing a defect.
If intermediate inspection reveals a defect, manufacturer will probably avoid liability.
11 of 12
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass – did not think of an inspection.
A manufacturer who has no reason to believe that an intermediate examination will take place will be potentially liable. If the defect arose after manufacture then they are not liable.
12 of 12

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Underpants with chemicals in – breach in the duty of care.

Back

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills – common law – breach of duty

Card 3

Front

The chain of causation is broken if there is opportunity for immediate inspection. The intermediary ignores a clear warning to examine the product before use.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is a product extends to the packaging, labelling and safety instructions.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Bottles exploded. It is difficult for claimants injured by defective products to establish negligence.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort Law resources »