Derby Accident Compensation Claims Solicitors

McIntosh Fleming Lawyers, specialise in no win, no fee , Derby accident compensation claims, and we guarantee that you keep all of your compensation without any deduction for our charges.

Product Liability

The CPA 1987 came into force on 1 March 1988 and applies to products supplied on or after that date.

Liability under the CPA 1987 is imposed on the producer of a product. A ‘product’ is defined as any goods or electricity and includes a product which is comprised in another product, whether by being a component part or raw material or otherwise. A ‘producer’ is a person (or company) who manufactured a product or who by the use of his trade name held himself out as having produced it. As a consequence of the way ‘product’ and ‘producer’ are defined, there may be several persons (for example the producer of a component and the finished product) who are liable and the claimant is advised to select the appropriate defendant or defendants with that consideration in mind. There are additional provisions whereby an importer or a person by use of a trademark has held himself out to be the producer may be made liable under the Act. Finally, as a backstop, if, having been asked by the claimant within a reasonable time, a supplier fails to identify the manufacturer or other person liable under the Act, they will be responsible.

Liability under the Act is established if the product was defective, which is to say that the safety of the product was not such as persons generally were entitled to expect. If that is established, liability is strict unless recognised defences are proven. The defences available are limited. It is a defence to show:

  • (i)
    that the defect was attributable to compliance with other statutes, or Community obligations;
  • (ii)
    that the defendant was not a supplier of the product;
  • (iii)
    that the supply was not in the course of business or not with a view to profit;
  • (iv)
    that the defect did not exist at the time of the supply;
  • (v)
    that the state of the scientific and technical knowledge at the time of the supply was not such that a producer of products of the same description might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed while the product was under its control or that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time that he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered; or
  • (vi)
    that the defect was wholly attributable to the design of the subsequent product in which the supplied product was a constituent part and the supplied product in which the supplied product was a constituent part and the supplied product complied with the instruction of the producer of the subsequent product.

Contact us by e-mailing   gary@derby-lawyers.com or ring us on 0800 1712215.