header-logo header-logo

A heavy burden

07 December 2012 / Mary Blyth
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury , Limitation
printer mail-detail

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll