header-logo header-logo

24 February 2017 / Alison McAdams
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Product liability revisited

The new approach adopted in Wilkes constitutes a practical & welcome way forward, says Alison McAdams

  • Manufacturer’s product was not defective.
  • A product’s safety was a relative concept.
  • Potential benefits had to be weighed against risks.

Judicial consideration of what it means for a product to be considered defective, pursuant to the European Product Liability Directive (PLD) (85/374/EEC), has been surprisingly rare. This makes the decision of Mr Justice Hickinbottom in Wilkes v DePuy International Limited [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB), [2016] All ER (D) 121 (Dec), whereby an artificial hip component that fractured was not found to be defective and the defendant manufacturer was not liable, of great significance.

The introduction of the PLD & the Hepatitis C litigation

When the PLD was implemented in the UK by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) in 1988, it was anticipated that a compensation system based on liability without fault would prove a popular remedy for claimants.

The PLD was, after all, the legislative response to the thalidomide tragedy, along with the creation of the safety framework introduced

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll