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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll