Product Liability
March 20, 2023
1 Duty of Care
• In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1, Lord Atkin formulated the
neighbour principle, which is otherwise referred to as the ‘wide rule’ from
Donoghue v Stevenson.
• Having laid down the neighbour principle, that is, the wide rule, Lord
Atkin went on to consider the circumstances in which a manufacturer of
a product would owe a duty of care to the consumer.
• This is usually known as the ‘narrow rule’ in Donoghue v Stevenson.
• To show a duty of care under the narrow rule the claimant must establish
that:
• (a) The defendant is a manufacturer;
• (b) The item causing damage is a product;
• (c) The claimant is a consumer; and
• (d) The product reached the consumer in the form in which it left the
manufacturer with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
2 ‘Manufacturer’
• Case law has extended the extension of ‘manufacturer’ to go beyond merely
the manufacturer of the goods in question.
• Indeed, ‘manufacturer’ now refers to any person who works in some way
on a product before it reaches the consumer.
• Thus, this includes: repairers of products (Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd
[1941] 3 All ER 156 ); installers of products (Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2
All ER 578 ); and, in rare circumstances, suppliers of products (Andrews
v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229 ).
1
, • A supplier can fall under the extension of ‘manufacturer’ in the following
circumstances.
• Suppliers may owe a duty under the narrow rule if either the circumstances
are such that they ought reasonably to inspect or test the products which
they supply or if they actually know of a defect/danger (see Andrews).
3 ‘Product’
• The extension of ‘product’ covers almost any item you can imagine which
is capable of causing damage.
• In addition, as Lord Atkin talked about an absence of care in the prepa-
ration of or ‘putting up’ of the product, the duty also extends to items
supplied with the product, such as packaging, containers, labels, instruc-
tions for use (Watson v Buckley, Osbourne, Garrett & Co. [1940] 1 All
ER 174 ).
• Note ‘complex structure’ theory here.
4 ‘Consumer’
• The extension of ‘consumer’ not only includes the ultimate user of the ar-
ticle, but also anyone whom the defendant should reasonably have in mind
as likely to be injured by the defendant’s negligence (that is, neighbours
in Donoghue v Stevenson terms).
• Suppose that the breaks on Sandra’s car have been manufactured negli-
gently by Audi, and Sandra is involved in an accident whereby she plows
into Nick, a pedestrian, because she cannot break in time.
• Both Nick and Sandra are consumers; for they are both people whom Audi
ought reasonably to have had in mind as likely to be injured by any failure
to take reasonable care on its part (see Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2 All
ER 578 ).
5 ‘Intermediate Examination’
• If there is a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, the manu-
facturer of the product will not owe a duty under the Donoghue v Steven-
son narrow rule.
• Of course, this does not necessarily mean the injured party will be without
a remedy; for a duty may be owed by the party having the opportunity
to examine the product.
2
March 20, 2023
1 Duty of Care
• In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1, Lord Atkin formulated the
neighbour principle, which is otherwise referred to as the ‘wide rule’ from
Donoghue v Stevenson.
• Having laid down the neighbour principle, that is, the wide rule, Lord
Atkin went on to consider the circumstances in which a manufacturer of
a product would owe a duty of care to the consumer.
• This is usually known as the ‘narrow rule’ in Donoghue v Stevenson.
• To show a duty of care under the narrow rule the claimant must establish
that:
• (a) The defendant is a manufacturer;
• (b) The item causing damage is a product;
• (c) The claimant is a consumer; and
• (d) The product reached the consumer in the form in which it left the
manufacturer with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.
2 ‘Manufacturer’
• Case law has extended the extension of ‘manufacturer’ to go beyond merely
the manufacturer of the goods in question.
• Indeed, ‘manufacturer’ now refers to any person who works in some way
on a product before it reaches the consumer.
• Thus, this includes: repairers of products (Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd
[1941] 3 All ER 156 ); installers of products (Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2
All ER 578 ); and, in rare circumstances, suppliers of products (Andrews
v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229 ).
1
, • A supplier can fall under the extension of ‘manufacturer’ in the following
circumstances.
• Suppliers may owe a duty under the narrow rule if either the circumstances
are such that they ought reasonably to inspect or test the products which
they supply or if they actually know of a defect/danger (see Andrews).
3 ‘Product’
• The extension of ‘product’ covers almost any item you can imagine which
is capable of causing damage.
• In addition, as Lord Atkin talked about an absence of care in the prepa-
ration of or ‘putting up’ of the product, the duty also extends to items
supplied with the product, such as packaging, containers, labels, instruc-
tions for use (Watson v Buckley, Osbourne, Garrett & Co. [1940] 1 All
ER 174 ).
• Note ‘complex structure’ theory here.
4 ‘Consumer’
• The extension of ‘consumer’ not only includes the ultimate user of the ar-
ticle, but also anyone whom the defendant should reasonably have in mind
as likely to be injured by the defendant’s negligence (that is, neighbours
in Donoghue v Stevenson terms).
• Suppose that the breaks on Sandra’s car have been manufactured negli-
gently by Audi, and Sandra is involved in an accident whereby she plows
into Nick, a pedestrian, because she cannot break in time.
• Both Nick and Sandra are consumers; for they are both people whom Audi
ought reasonably to have had in mind as likely to be injured by any failure
to take reasonable care on its part (see Stennett v Hancock [1939] 2 All
ER 578 ).
5 ‘Intermediate Examination’
• If there is a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, the manu-
facturer of the product will not owe a duty under the Donoghue v Steven-
son narrow rule.
• Of course, this does not necessarily mean the injured party will be without
a remedy; for a duty may be owed by the party having the opportunity
to examine the product.
2
