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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll