Level 13 Level 15
Level 14

Product Liability

10 words 0 ignored

Ready to learn       Ready to review

Ignore words

Check the boxes below to ignore/unignore words, then click save at the bottom. Ignored words will never appear in any learning session.

All None

Donoghue v Stevenson
The manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
The claimant can be any person who buys or uses the goods or who is affected by them.
Stennett v Hancock
The defendant can be anyone involved in supplying the goods and whose actions might reasonably foreseeably affect the consumer.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
The courts are prepared to find liability if it is clear from the fact of the case that carelessness must have been involved in the manufacturing process, even if it is difficult to pinpoint where.
Griffiths v Arch Engineering
The defendant should take reasonable care to protect any potential user if he knows that there is no reasonable expectation that a third party will check the goods.
Fisher v Harrods
If goods present a danger when not used in a particular way, the manufacturer should give proper instructions for use and an appropriate warning.
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass
The claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused the damage.
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities
The claimant can claim for personal injuries or damage to other property but not to the item itself.
Aswan Engineering v Lupdine
Packaging is separate from the product and constitutes ‘other property’.
Aswan Engineering v Lupdine
The law on components is unclear, but it is expected that if a single component of larger product causes damage to the product, but the component was created by a different company, the larger product is more likely to be treated as ‘other property’.