Tort Law Product Liability Issue

ciaranc25

Is there any particular reason that someone would take a claim for product liability under negligence instead of using the strict liability process under the liability for defective products act?
Apart from the fact that the claim must be over 450e under the act?
it is surely easier under the act?
Mcmahon and Binchy mention that there has been a dearth of cases under the act in their book, so im curious as to which route to follow in an exam problem question.
Thanks for any info.

hullaballoo

I'd genuinely say it is because EU law is a pain in the hoop.

MarkAnthony

You'd follow both making the point above under academic commentary.

You might want to rephase Hullaballoo's EU point, or not! :pac:

ciaranc25

Ive found it hard to find information on it, ill just talk about both and offer advice as to which to take in the question, thank you guys. and ill rephrase his sentiments haha

Pro Hoc Vice

ciaranc25 wrote: »

Is there any particular reason that someone would take a claim for product liability under negligence instead of using the strict liability process under the liability for defective products act?
Apart from the fact that the claim must be over 450e under the act?
it is surely easier under the act?
Mcmahon and Binchy mention that there has been a dearth of cases under the act in their book, so im curious as to which route to follow in an exam problem question.
Thanks for any info.

What damage has been caused?

ciaranc25

It is just a hypothetical situation for a problem question regarding product liability in an exam. the questions usually involve a child being burnt and the clothing in question not having the relevant labels, or it involves a defective product which doesnt work and explodes, damaging the plaintiffs property and injuring the plaintiff too.

MarkAnthony

Best of luck - if you're going through past questions you'll be in good stead - examiners are not known for their imagination!

Pro Hoc Vice

ciaranc25 wrote: »

It is just a hypothetical situation for a problem question regarding product liability in an exam. the questions usually involve a child being burnt and the clothing in question not having the relevant labels, or it involves a defective product which doesnt work and explodes, damaging the plaintiffs property and injuring the plaintiff too.

You need to look at the defences in the act and very important is time limits from memory there is a date of knowledge limit and a limit from when the product first hit the market, such issue will decide should a person due under the act or in tort.

Mr. Incognito

ciaranc25 wrote: »

Is there any particular reason that someone would take a claim for product liability under negligence instead of using the strict liability process under the liability for defective products act?
Apart from the fact that the claim must be over 450e under the act?
it is surely easier under the act?
Mcmahon and Binchy mention that there has been a dearth of cases under the act in their book, so im curious as to which route to follow in an exam problem question.
Thanks for any info.

In practice you would take a claim for both.

Why would you only take an action for either or.

If it breaches both, sue under both.

Anyway, the EU Directive was transposed by the Product Liability Act 1991 so you'd take a claim under that before the EU equivalent but youd still plead it

ciaranc25

Perfect, thank you. In the exam, I just sued under the Act, I only seen this afterwards. Hopefully wont lose too many marks!