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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll