header-logo header-logo

08 May 2015 / Thomas Jervis
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

What defect?

nlj_may_8_jervis

Thomas Jervis salutes the landmark product liability ruling in Boston Scientific

The Court of Justice of the European Union recently published its long awaited decision in Boston Scientific Medizintechnik v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt C503/13 and C504/13. This decision has important ramifications for practitioners in the field of product liability who deal with the EC Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC (the directive) and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987).

Boston Scientific suggests that a problem product may be “defective” without having to show that the product is defective in each individual case.

Background

The directive was adopted in 1985 and was implemented into UK law by the CPA 1987. This came in the wake of the Thalidomide scandal, and was a move across the EU to establish a harmonised regime to mediate between the interests of business to make profit and innovate, versus an accessible recourse for injured consumers.

Recital 2 of the directive discusses liability without fault on the part of the producer being “the sole means of adequately solving the problem, peculiar to

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll