A heavy burden

The time is right to introduce a bespoke procedure for personal injury product claims, argues Mary Blyth

In the past 11 months there has been a tsunami of claims for defective medical devices, such as PIP breast implants and metal hip implants. How do we reconcile the procedure for personal injury law, so that it fits in with the demands of consumer and contract law for product liability cases and ensure that it is reasonable and proportionate?

In his final Access to justice report of July 1996, Lord Woolf set out a set of helpful protocols to accompany the Civil Procedure Rules. Only four of the 12 protocols refer to personal injury claims specifically.

This is the time to introduce a product liability protocol for the reasons below:

the number of potential defendants increases in product liability claims (manufacturer, perceived manufacturer, EU importer, supplier) and more investigation is required by the claimant;
there is a requirement for proof that the product is defective and this usually requires expert evidence;
the limitation may

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

A heavy burden

Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury , Limitation

The time is right to introduce a bespoke procedure for personal injury product claims, argues Mary Blyth

This is the time to introduce a product liability protocol for the reasons below:

the number of potential defendants increases in product liability claims (manufacturer, perceived manufacturer, EU importer, supplier) and more investigation is required by the claimant;
there is a requirement for proof that the product is defective and this usually requires expert evidence;
the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up