header-logo header-logo

What defect?

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll