Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK1 › Tort › Product liability
SQE1 · FLK1 · Tort

Product liability — SQE1 Tort question

A worked single-best-answer question on product liability, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Product liability

Ffion bought a new tumble dryer for her home. Because of a manufacturing defect in its wiring, it caught fire two months later. The fire destroyed the dryer, worth £400, caused £2,000 of damage to her kitchen, and burned her hand. The manufacturer, Spinwell Ltd, is based in England. Ffion wishes to sue Spinwell under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Which of the following best describes what Ffion can recover from Spinwell under the Act?

  1. AAll of her losses, including the value of the dryer, because Spinwell is strictly liable for the defect.
  2. BOnly damages for her personal injury, because the Act does not extend to property damage.
  3. CNothing, unless she proves that Spinwell was negligent in manufacturing the dryer.
  4. DDamages for the kitchen and the dryer, but not the burn, because the Act covers only damage to property.
  5. EDamages for her personal injury and the £2,000 damage to her kitchen, but not for the loss of the dryer itself.
Show answer and reasoning
E is the best answer. The producer of a defective product is liable without proof of fault for damage caused by the defect (Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 2). 'Damage' includes death, personal injury and damage to private property, but not loss of or damage to the product itself (s 5(2)). Property damage must exceed £275 (s 5(4)), which the kitchen damage does.

Rule: Under the CPA 1987 a producer is strictly liable for personal injury and for private property damage over £275 caused by a defect, but not for damage to the product itself.

  • A Liability is strict, but s 5(2) excludes loss of or damage to the defective product itself. (wrong rule)
  • B The Act covers damage to private property above £275 as well as personal injury. (wrong rule)
  • C Liability under Part I does not depend on proof of negligence. (wrong rule)
  • D Personal injury is the core damage covered, and the dryer itself is excluded. (wrong rule)

Source: Consumer Protection Act 1987, ss 2, 3 and 5(1), (2) and (4)

Practise more Tort   All Tort subtopics