240 Chapter 8The tort of negligence
the danger concerned or reasonably discourage people from taking the risks which injure
them. It seems likely that warning signs cannot protect an occupier who knows that the
condition of the land, or the activities of the trespasser, mean that the trespasser is likely to
be injured. Nor can liability be excluded for conduct which intentionally or recklessly
causes injury.The Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part I
In 1985 a European Community Directive ordered all Member States to pass legislation to
introduce the concept of product liability. The United Kingdom passed the Consumer
Protection Act 1987 to comply with this Directive.
Under Part I of the Act, a claimant who is injured by an unsafe product will be able to
sue the manufacturer of the product, and possibly others, without having to prove the tort
of negligence.
When we considered the tort of negligence we saw that manufacturers owe a duty of care
to their customers. Earlier in this chapter, when we considered Donoghue vStevenson,
we saw that in that case the manufacturers of the ginger beer owed a duty of care to
Mrs Donoghue.
However, negligence is a difficult tort to establish. The manufacturers of the ginger beer
would not have been liable if they could have proved that they had taken all reasonable
care.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, liability is strict. This means that, in the absence
of one of the defences listed in the Act, consumers injured by a product will always gain
damages from the producer of the product if the product was less safe than could reason-
ably be expected. The defences available are, as we shall see, narrow and specific.Who may sue?
The Act gives the right to sue to any person who is injured by a product, the safety of which
was ‘not such as persons generally are entitled to expect’.
For over 100 years the Sale of Goods Act required that goods sold by a business were of
merchantable quality. As we have seen, this requirement has been replaced by a require-
ment that the goods be of satisfactory quality. If a buyer of goods is injured because goods
sold by a business were not of satisfactory quality the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will provide
the buyer with a remedy. However, privity of contract (see Chapter 2 at pp. 63 – 5) restricts
the remedies offered by the Sale of Goods Act to the buyer of the goods unless the Contracts
(Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 applies. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 now gives
a similarly high level of protection to anyone injured by unsafe goods. The Consumer
Protection Act is not concerned with the general quality of the goods. It applies only where
goods are unsafe.Who is liable?
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 places liability on the ‘producer’ of the product, and
ss. 1 and 2 define the producer as including:
(i) The manufacturer of the product.
(ii) The extractor of raw materials.