ABSTRACT
ANSWER Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was introduced into English law to implement the EC Directive 85/734/EEC relating to product liability. The main provision of the Act is to be found in s 2(1), which states that where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, the persons detailed in s 2(2) shall be liable for the damage, regardless of any negligence on the producers’ part. This change from ‘fault’ liability, as demonstrated by the leading negligence case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), to ‘strict’ liability was viewed with concern by manufacturers. They prophesised increased costs and a failure to introduce new products for fear of the level of litigation seen in the USA in regard to product liability. However, in reality there has been very little litigation in this area and many commentators have argued that the legal position was barely altered by the Act.1 The position can be judged by contrasting the decision in the ‘McDonalds’ cases’: in the UK a case brought after the introduction of the Act was thrown out at first instance, the judge declaring that hot coffee was not a defective product even though it had caused scalding to children (Bogle v McDonalds (2002)), whereas in the USA an adult claimant received thousands of dollars in compensation for a similar incident.
