Despite the defendant’s claim that testing for the virus was difficult or even impossible, this had been a defective product under the 1987 Act. The development risks defence was not available.

A boy lost the sight in one eye after he was hit by the metal buckle on the elastic strap of his brother’s push chair sleeping bag.

There would not have been a breach of duty under the common law; however, the product was held to be defective under the CPA 1987, establishing liability by the producer.

The wording of the ‘development risks defence’ (CPA 1987, s 4(1)(e)) was challenged in the European Court of Justice.

The wording of s 4(1)(e), when considered in the context of the British courts’ interpretation, was not inconsistent with art 7(e) of the EU Directive.

A woman who became sick after drinking ginger beer from a bottle containing a snail was not able to sue in contract because she had not made the purchase.

A manufacturer owes a duty of care for damage caused to the ultimate consumer of his product.

Injuries were caused when a car windscreen broke. The manufacturers were sued in negligence.

Although there would have been a duty of care owed, the fact that the accident occurred a year after manufacture meant that causation was doubtful. The negligence could have been attributed to a fitter, or other cause.

The plaintiff developed a skin rash due to chemicals left in his underwear by the manufacturer.

The presence of the chemicals was presumed to be due to the negligence of someone. The manufacturers were unable to discharge the heavy burden of proving that the fault had not been theirs.

A young child was injured by dishwasher soap powder, which had been consumed after prying off the ‘childproof’ lid.

There was no liability under either the common law or the CPA 1987. Consumers were entitled to expect that the lid would be difficult to remove, and it had been so.