#5419 - Products Liability - Irish Tort Law

Products Liability

Corry v Lucas (CP 1868)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was killed by an exploding boiler that had been sold to his employer and guaranteed to be a first class job.

Issue

• Products Liability

Judgment (Monahan CJ)

• The plaintiff did not use the boiler on the faith of the guarantee – he was not even aware of it.

• Winterbottom v Wright followed – in the case of things not dangerous in themselves, the defendants could only be liable if they fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that the item was safe.

McPherson v Buick Motor Company (NY CA 1916)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was injured when his car, which was manufactured by the defendants, collapsed due to a negligently constructed wheel.

Issue

• Products Liability

Judgment (Cardozo J)

• Manufacturers are responsible for damage caused by dangerous products – if something is certain to cause injury if it is negligently manufactured then it is a dangerous thing.

• The risk of danger must probable, not merely possible.

Donoghue v Stevenson (HoL 1932)

Facts

1. The plaintiff suffered gastro-enteritis after drinking from an opaque ginger beer bottle which contained the decomposed remains of a snail.

Issue

• Products Liability – Duty of Care

Judgment

1. Lord Buckmaster (dissented)

2. Lord Atkin

   • A manufacturer of products which A) he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him B) with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination and with C) the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care.

3. Lord Macmillan

   • The manufacture in making his products for human consumption, takes on a duty of care to ensure that the people who consume his products suffer no injury as a result.

4. Lord Thankerton

   • The manufacturer's actions brought him into a direct relationship with the injured party which created a duty of care.

5. Lord Tomlin

Kirby v Burke & Holloway (HC 1944)

Facts

1. The plaintiff ate jam that had been contaminated and thus suffered an attack of gastro-enteritis.

Issue

• Products Liability – Duty of Care

Judgment (Gavan Duffy P)

• As the Irish authorities on this subject are in complete conflict, this case must be decided on first principles.

• The Law of Torts is based on the standards of the reasonable man.

• A reasonable man in the position of the defendant, making jam for the public to eat, would take certain specific precautions to make sure that it is safe.

• Thus the manufacturer has such a duty.

• Considering the division in Donoghue v Stevenson, it is not a reliable guide to the law in Ireland – however as it is supported by other ex-judicial writings it can be relied upon.

Power v Bedford Motor Company (SC 1959)

Facts

1. The plaintiff bought a car from the second defendants and injured himself due to a defect in the steering.

2. The car had been subject to negligent maintenance by both defendants.

3. Both the first and second defendants had at one stage or another been requested to fix the steering.

Issue

• Liability for negligent repair – whether duty owed

Judgment

1. Maguire CJ (concurred with Lavery J)

2. Lavery J

   • This case should be decided on the Donoghue v Stevenson principles of negligence – although at the time the law was unsettled it can now be regarded as being settled.

   • The liability of repairers for defective work under this principle has been recognised by the courts.

   • The deceased belonged to the class of persons that the repairer should have contemplated would be injured in the case of negligent work.

   • The duty would exist within the period of time that could reasonably be expected to lapse before the car would be maintained again.

   • Thus the defendants are liable.

3. O'Daly J (concurred with Lavery J)

4. MaguireJ (concurred with Lavery J)

5. Kinsmill Moore J

Clabby v Global Windows (HC 2003)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was a postman who injured himself while stooping to deliver letters through a door manufactured by the plaintiffs.

2. The injury was due to the doors design.

Issue

• Products Liability

Judgment (Finnegan P)

• The manufacturer owes a duty of care to those who may be damaged or injured by a product.

• At the time of manufacture the only concern that had been articulated about the design of the door was that it was an inconvenience to those using it – this is not a serious enough concern to impose a duty to avoid the kind of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

• In addition statutory authorities have yet to take on board An Post's suggestions, the low letter plates are still in common use and the defendant was unaware of the letter box's potential for injury.

• In light of these facts there was no negligence.

• In addition, the actions of the plaintiff in failing to remove his bag was the actual cause of the injury, not the defendant's negligence (if any)

Keegan v Owens (SC 1951)

Facts

1. The plaintiff was operating an amusement at a carnival and injured himself during its operation.

2. The amusement was badly manufactured and the plaintiff sued the supplier.

Issue

• Products Liability – Duty of Care – Supplier

Judgment (O'Byrne J)

• The supplier had A) been paid to lease the machines, B) was present at the carnival and C) his employees took part in the operation of the machines.

• Thus there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff and the jury were entitled to find that the defendant had failed in that duty.

Civil Liability Act, 1961

s.34.1

Where, in any action brought by one person in respect of a wrong committed by any other person, it is proved that the damage suffered by the plaintiff was caused partly by the want of care or negligence of the plaintiff or of one for whose acts he is responsible (in this part called contributory negligence) and partly by the wrong of the defendant, the damages recoverable in respect of such wrong shall be reduced by such amount as the court finds just and equitable having regard to the degrees of fault of the plaintiff and defendant, provided that...

sub-s.2

f) For the purposes of sub-s.1 where an action is brought in negligence in respect of a thing that has caused damage the fact that there was a possiblity or probability of examination after the thing had left the hands of the defendant shall not by itself exclude the defendant's duty, but may be taken as evidence that in the circumstances he was not negligent in parting with the thing in its dangerous state.

Colgan v Connolly Construction (HC 1980)

Facts

1. The plaintiff had bought a house that contained considerable qualitative as well as dangerous defects.

2. He tried to sue the original builders.

Issue

• Products Liability – Buildings – Duty to prevent qualitative defects

Judgment (McMahon J)

• By virtue of s.34(2)(f) of the Civil Liability Act 1961, the onus is on the defendant to show that there a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination – having failed to do this, the plaintiff falls within the class of people who the defendant ought to see will suffer damage as a result of his negligence.

• The principles of Donoghue v Stevenson apply to the present case where the builder has a duty to avoid defects in the construction of the house that will not be discoverable by any examination which the reasonable man would expect the plaintiff to make and thus threaten the plaintiff's health.

• This duty only extends to defects which threaten health – Anns only afforded damages for purely qualitative defects because the defendants were in breach of a bye-law.

Junior Books v Veitchi (HoL 1982)

Facts

1. The defendants were subcontracted to lay a floor for the plaintiffs.

2. The floor turned out to be severely deficient and caused the plaintiffs to lose a considerable amount of money.

Issue

• Products Liability – Duty of Care – Pure Economic Loss

Judgment

1. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton (concurring - agreed with Lord Roskill)

   • The main reason for the reluctance to impose a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss other than in exceptional circumstances is the floodgates argument.

   • However this case answers all the tests which have set to limit liability in this area – A) the plaintiffs knew the defendants,B) they were all but in a contractual relationship, C) the injury was a direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' negligence and D) the plaintiffs' architects specifically chose the defendants for the job.

   • The standard is that of the defendants' contractual duties which were known to the plaintiffs.

2. Lord Russell of Killowen (concurring – agreed with Lords Fraser and Roskill)

3. Lord Keith of Kinkel (concurring)

   • The defendants were aware of A) the nature of the plaintiffs' business and B) the purpose for which the floor was required – thus they ought reasonably to have anticipated the consequence of their delivering shoddy workmanship and owed the plaintiffs a duty to take care to avoid causing them the loss which they did.

   • However this case should be seen as being decided on its own particular facts and not within the general duty of care set out in Donoghue v Stevenson.

4. Lord Roskill (concurring – agreed with Lord Fraser)

   • The requisite degree of proximity existed in this case – A) the defendants were nominate sub-contractors, B) specialists in flooring, C) solely responsible for the construction of the floor, D) they knew they were relied upon by the plaintiffs, E) the relationship was just short of a...