The Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part I 243jam poisoned a person who consumed it. They might of course be liable under the tort
of negligence.(iii) That the defect in the product did not exist when the product was put onto the market.
(iv) A supplier of a component will have a defence if the unsafety arose because the manu-
facturer of the finished product misused the component.
(v) The development risks defence gives a defence to a producer if he can show that when
he produced it the state of scientific and technical knowledge was ‘not such that a pro-
ducer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected
to have discovered it’.
This last defence is a controversial one. It would have meant that the victims of the drug
Thalidomide would not have had a remedy because when the drug was created scientists
were not aware of its danger. For the same reason, the drug manufacturers would not
have been liable in the tort of negligence. (The drug Thalidomide was widely prescribed to
pregnant women in the 1960s and caused very severe disability to their children. The drug
had been tested in the usual way and had seemed quite safe.) The Government in power
when the Act was passed included the development risks defence because it thought that
not to do so would make the manufacture of drugs and certain other products so hazardous
as to be economically impractical. Ultimately, the balance to be struck between the interests
of drug manufacturers and drug users is a matter of politics.
Contributory negligence on the part of the claimant can reduce the damages.
Figure 8.3 gives an overview of the CPA Part I. If a person is injured by goods which he
bought himself, he will not need to use the CPA in order to gain a remedy. The buyer will
sue the shop under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 14(2). (See pp. 82– 6.) A person who did
not himself buy the goods which injured him will also be able to sue the shop under SGA
1979 s. 14(2) if the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows him to sue on the con-
tract. The circumstances in which the CRTPA 1999 will allow a person who did not make
the contract to sue on the contract were considered in Chapter 2 on pp. 65 – 6.
The following examples demonstrate the present-day position as regards product liability.
Example
John buys a toaster from a shop. The toaster explodes, injuring John and damaging his
kitchen. John made the contract with the shop. The shop is in breach of s. 14(2) of the Sale
of Goods Act 1979 and will be strictly liable for the damage and the injury. John can sue the
shop for breach of contract and will recover damages for his injuries and the damage to his
kitchen. John can also recover the price of the toaster from the shop.Example
John buys a toaster as a Christmas present for Mary. John tells the shop that the toaster is
being bought for Mary and asks the shop to deliver it to her house. The toaster explodes,
injuring Mary and damaging her kitchen. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
allows Mary to sue the shop just as if she made the contract. She will therefore recover
damages for her injuries and the damage to her kitchen. John or Mary, but not both of them,
can recover the price of the toaster from the shop.