NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

LAW OF TORTS - I
FIRST TRIMESTER
PROJECT
TOPIC – FIXATION OF LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE
PRODUCTS

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

AJIT JAISWAL PROF.(DR.)RAJIV KUMAR KHARE

2019 BA LLB (HONS) 83

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the analysis of the topic “Fixation of liability for defective
products” has been prepared and submitted by Ajit jaiswal, who is currently pursuing
B.A LL.B(Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of Law of
torts .It is also certified that this is his original analysis of the case and this case
analysis has not been submitted to any other University, nor published in any journal .

Date:

Signature of the Student :……………………………

Signature of the Supervisor :……………………………

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge and extent my heartfelt gratitude to Asst. Prof. Dr. Rajesh
kumar Khare for guiding me throughout the development of this analysis of this case into
a coherent whole by providing helpful insights and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would
also like to thank the officials of The Gyan Mandir, NLIU for helping me to find the
appropriate research material for this case analysis. I am deeply indebted to my parents
and friends for all the moral support and encouragement.

Ajit Jaiswal
TABLE OF CONTENT

1. HYPOTHESIS………………………………………………………………………………..
2. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….
3. CAVEAT VENDITOR………………………………………………………………………..
3.1. HISTORY & EVOLUTION OF PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW……………………….
3.2. DONOGHUE VS STEVENSON………………………………………………………...
4. TYPES OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS……………………………….
5. TORT THEORIES ON PRODUCT LIABILITY……………………………………….........
6. FIXATION OF PRODUCT LIABILITIES BY COURTS……………………………………
7. PRODUCT LIABILITY UNDER LAWS OF INDIA …………………………………........
8. TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………………………………………
9. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………..
10. OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................
11. METHOD OF STUDY………………………………………………………………………..
12. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………
13. BIBILIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………
HYPOTHESIS:

To study the defined liability for defected products and its categorisation into various laws as
to know the claim for liability in accordance with such acts and statutes.

INTRODUCTION
Product liability law1 means a number of laws governing who is liable, but distinct from
common injury law, for faulty or hazardous products. This set of regulations sometimes
promotes damage recovery for an wounded individual. Product liability relates to the
responsibility for putting a faulty brand in the hands of a customer by a producer or vendor.
All item vendors in the supply chain have responsibility for a product defect causing injury.
The law generally needs a commodity to satisfy the consumer's normal requirements.

It is a branch of strict liability the fixation of liability for a defective product is a trending
topic in today's world as it affects everybody in the economic cycle Consumers,
Manufacturers(Corporations) and the Government, as it has duty to make effective laws to
prevent such events from happening in the future. The fact is that countries such as the
United States of America, the United Kingdom and the countries of the european union have
very stringent laws dealing with such cases, even some cases awarding exemplary damages.
These countries have a very efficient and effective consumer protection system and due care
is taken by manufacturers whenever they manufacture and introduce new products into the
market.

1
https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-product-liability.html
CHAPTER 1
CAVEAT VENDITOR
When a sale is subject to this warning, the buyer assumes the danger that the product may be
either faulty or inappropriate to his or her needs. This rule is not intended to shield vendors
engaging in fraud or bad faith by creating fake or misleading depictions about the quality or
condition of a specific item. It simply summarizes the concept that a purchaser is required to
examine, judge, and test a product that is regarded for purchase on its own.2

Nevertheless, the contemporary trend in consumer protection laws has minimized the
significance of this rule. Although the buyer is still needed to create a decent inspection of the
products upon purchase, the vendor has been given enhanced duties, and the doctrine of
caveat vendor (Latin for "let the seller be beware") has become more common. Generally
speaking, there is a legal presumption that a vendor makes certain warranties unless the
customer and the vendor agree otherwise one such warranty is the merchantability implied
warranty. If a person buys soap,for example,there is an implied warranty that it will clean; if a
person buys skis, there is an implied warranty that they will be safe to use on the slopes.3

In dealing with an average client, a vendor who is in the company of frequently selling a
specific sort of products has even higher responsibility. A individual buying antiques from an
antique dealer or a jeweler's jewelry is justified in relying on the seller's knowledge.If both
the buyer and the seller are negotiating from equal bargaining positions, however, the
doctrine of caveat emptor would apply.4 To give rise to product liability5, the product must
have been marketed on the market at some stage.

Historically, in order for the injured individual to recover, a contractual partnership, known as
"contract privacy," had to exist between the individual wounded by a product and the product
provider. However, in most countries today, this requirement no longer occurs, and in order
to recover, the wounded individual does not have to be the product's buyer. Any person who
foreseeably could have been injured by a defective product can recover for his or her injuries,
as long as the product was sold to someone. Liability for a product defect could rest with any
party in the product's chain of distribution, such as the manufacturer, wholesalers, a retail
seller of the product, and a party who assembles or installs the product. For strict liability to
apply, the sale of a product must be made in the regular course of the supplier's business.
2
"Caveat Venditor",The Free Dictionary,2019,http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ ,(8 August 2019)
3
"Caveat Venditor",supra note 2.
4
"Caveat Venditor",supra note 2.
5
"What is product Liability",available at http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-product-
liability.html
Thus, someone who sells a product at a garage sale would probably not be liable in a
produc0t liability action.

History and evolution of product liability law and its cases

The evolution of product liability cases has been a long process.The cases relating to product
liability are mostly related to the UK,as it has set a foundation for these cases.

One of the most important case was the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson.
Donoghue v Stevenson 6
Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and
an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen.
Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some
from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of
the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue
suffered personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the
ginger beer.7

This case led to the establishment the modern law of negligence and the neighbour test.8

CHAPTER 2
TYPES OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS
There are three categories of defective product liability claims :
Defectively Manufactured Products
The most evident sort of claim for product liability is when the product that caused injury was
produced defectively. Due to some mistake in creating it, a defectively manufactured product
is faulty, such as a factory issue where it was produced. As a consequence, the item that
causes injury differs somehow from all the others on the shelf. The manufacturing defect
must have caused the injury.9

Defectively Designed Products

6
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
7
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 avaible at http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-
Stevenson.php
8
Id. [5]
9
Types of Defective Product Liability Claims
Available at http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/types-of-defective-product-liability-30070.html
In this type of product liability category, a product's design is inherently dangerous or
defective. Defective design claims do not arise from some error or mishap in the
manufacturing process, but rather involve the claim that an entire line of products is
inherently dangerous, regardless of the fact that the injury-causing product was perfectly
made according to the manufacturer's specifications. The injury must have been caused by the
defective design.10

Failure to Provide Adequate Warnings or Instructions

The third sort of claim for product responsibility includes failure to provide appropriate
warnings or guidelines on the correct use of the item. Failure-to-warn claims typically require
a product that is hazardous in a manner that is not evident to the consumer or requires the
customer to take unique precautions or diligence when using it. The injury must lead from the
inability to warn or instruct correctly.11

Comparing the Three Types of Product Liability Claims

Claims involving pharmaceutical drugs provide a useful way of comparing the three types of
product liability claims. If you are injured because the particular bottle of cough syrup you
bought happens to contain several drops of arsenic that fell into it by accident at the factory
where it was made, your claim would be based on a manufacturing defect. By contrast, if
taking the same untampered-with cough syrup product led you to experience a heart attack
due to its ordinary components, your claim would be based on a design defect.

Finally, if the cough syrup was produced properly and is usually secure for use, but you were
wounded because you mixed it with aspirin and the label did not warn that such a mixture is
hazardous, your claim would be based on a failure to warn. By knowing these distinctions,
you can better recognize your claim for product liability and present your case in court
properly.12

CHAPTER 3

TORT THEORIES ON PRODUCT LIABILITY

An injured individual trying to recover damage caused by a product that is inevitably and
unreasonably hazardous may choose from several possible causes of action on the torts menu.

10
Id.{6}
11
Types of Defective Product Liability Claims, supra note at 8.
12
Types of Defective Product Liability Claims, supra note at 8.
In its traditional form, the most likely are negligence and the theory of strict liability
employed against the manufacturers of faulty, unreasonably hazardous products. Other
possibilities include strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, and absolute liability
for abnormally hazardous operations.13

NEGLIGENCE

The contemporary law of negligence starts with the general concept that whenever a
individual understands or ought to understand that what they are about to do may generate an
unreasonable danger of damage to another individual, they have a obligation to use
reasonable care to prevent creating that danger. 14 By limiting the legal commitments owed by
certain groups of defendants, the courts have tempered this principle. The choice to do an
unreasonably hazardous act may represent actionable negligence, although under the
conditions the actor conducted it with decent care. The defendant had an alternative course of
conduct that would not carry with it an unavoidable, undue risk, the failure to exercise that
option might constitute negligence. If a defendant's choice was between performing the
unduly risky activity or abstaining, the decision to act might constitute negligence. The
recognition of the duty, or the refusal to recognize the duty, should apply to all product
manufacturers.

STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which promulgated the black-letter law
holding vendors accountable for damage caused by their faulty, unreasonably hazardous
goods, originated from the doctrine of strict-tort product liability. 15 Originally applicable to
13
Joseph A. Page,Liability for Unreasonably and Unavoidably UnsafeProducts: Does Negligence doctrine Role
to
Play (1996),Chicago-Kent Law Review,p.94,
<http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=2151&context=facpub>
14
Leon Green has referred to this principle as the "danger" test. See Leon Green, The Duty Problem in
NegligenceCases, 28 COLUM. L. REv. 1014, 1028 (1928). It originally derived from a proposition put forward
by
Brett, M.R., in Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q.B.D. 503, 509 (1883): Whenever one person is by circumstances placed
in
such a positionwith regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise
that if
he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause
danger
of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.
15

§ 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User of Consumer:
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby
caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial
change in the condition in which it is sold ....
meat, and then to "intimate body use" goods, this rule was further extended by drafters to
cover all products, rather late in its growth . Strict tort liability once helped plaintiffs by
restricting affirmative defenses that defendants might assert because the Restatement
recognized only a limited form of assumption of risk that amounted to a form of contributory
fault. The adoption of comparative negligence by courts as an affirmative defense in strict-
tort products cases.

The recognition of the duty, or the refusal to recognize the duty, should apply to all product
manufacturers16

TORTIOUS MISREPRESENTATION

A claim in a product responsibility suit may be based on incorrect or inaccurate data

transmitted by a product's maker. An individual relying on the seller's data and damaged by
such dependence may recover for misrepresentation. This retrieval basis does not rely on a
product defect, but rather on incorrect communication.17

In one of three fundamental types, tortious misrepresentation may occur.

•First, a individual may undertake fraudulent misrepresentation or misrepresentation in which

the individual understands that the claim is incorrect and attempts to mislead the complainant
by creating the assertion.

•Second, an individual may commit negligent misrepresentation in cases where the

individual was negligent in determining whether the declaration was true.

•Third, some jurisdictions enable strict responsibility in cases where a manufacturer's

declaration was true.

WARRANTY

RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A(1) (1965).

16
If a court were to exempt the manufacturers of some types of goods from product category liability, it would
be inviting those manufacturers subjected to potential product-category liability to mount a constitutional
challenge based upon the denial of equal protection. For an example of an unsuccessful challenge in the
product-liability context, see In re Asbestos Litigation, 829 F.2d 1233, 1244 (3d Cir. 1987) (asbestos producers
might be subjected to stricter standards of liability than other manufacturers
17
Legal Basis for liability in Product Cases,
available at http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/legal-basis-for-liability-in-product-cases.html
A guarantee is a kind of assurance given by a vendor concerning the product quality. A
guarantee may be express, implying that some depictions of the performance of the item can
be made by the vendor. If the quality of the product is lower than the depiction, the vendor
may be responsible for violation of explicit guarantee. Due to the selling nature, certain
guarantees can also be implied.18

18
Legal Basis for liability in Product Cases,supra note at 23.
 CHAPTER 4

FIXATION OF PRODUCT LIABILITIES DEVELOPED BY COURTS

MARKET SHARE RESPONSIBILITY

Market responsibility is one concept that judges develop to grant the plaintiff damages if it is
difficult to define the claimant accountable for accidents that are caused by the fungible mass
product of the complainant and which are not capable of identifying the comapny of the
producer. Therefore, the market share responsibility of the judiciary created to ensure each
defendant pays the compensation for the item according to the plaintiff according to the same
market share percentages as the businesses have for that item. Market share liability may be a
fashionable evidentiary tool won’t to facilitate the litigator in distinguishing the causing just
in case of associate degree injury.19 The idea of market share liability permits plaintiffs
injured by fungible product to recover damages despite the fact that they're unable to spot the
suspect manufacturer of the merchandise. The theory isn't used abundant these days ,it is
principally employed in cases associated with drug makers conjointly, the cases associated
with the theory haven't awarded redress and court until date have thought its not truthful to
award redress in line with the market share.

ALTERNATE LIABILITY

Alternative liability theory is a theory developed by California Supreme Court. It is one of

most influential legal doctrines impacting the product liability law of the United States. It is a
doctrine that allows a plaintiff(injured party) to shift the burden of proving the causation of
her harm to more than one defendants, though only one would have been responsible. The
case where this doctrine of alternative liability evolved is in the case of Summer v. Tice.20

CHAPTER 5
19
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 750 N.E.2d 1055 (N.Y. 2001)
20
Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948)
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIA WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW

PRODUCT LIABILITY UNDER THE LAWS OF INDIA

In India, Product liability law, additionally known as “products liability”, governs the liability
of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to someone or property
caused by dangerous or defective product. The goal of product liability laws is to assist
defend shoppers from dangerous or defective product, whereas holding makers, distributors,
and retailers responsible for putt into the market place product that they knew or ought to
have proverbial were dangerous or defective. 21

In India, as a general rule the principles of English law are deemed to be applicable. The
Indian Courts adopted English principles, if a similar were in consonance with the conception
of justice, equity and sensible conscience in Republic of India. In India, there has been little
or no wrongful conduct legal proceeding and fewer cases wont to move to High Courts and
Supreme Court, this was because of the shortage of consciousness about one’s rights and
therefore the spirit of toleration. The numerous cases of injury to or death of diverse persons
because of spurious and injurious foodstuffs, medicines, liquor, etc., suffering because of
wrong and negligent treatment within the hospitals, loss because of voltage fluctuations or
unpredicted power cuts, injury because of contaminated water, atmospheric pollution and
many such injuries were place up with while not delivery any action in a court of law. The
goal of product liability laws is to assist defend shoppers from dangerous or defective
product, whereas holding makers, distributors and retailers to blame for putting into the
market place product that they knew or ought to have proverbial were dangerous or defective.

We have referred to following while responding to the Queries raised:

(i) Law of Torts as laid down by Courts through Precedents;
(ii) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “CPA”);
(iii) The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the “MRTP Act”);
(iv) The Sale of Goods Act, 1930;
(v) The Indian Contract Act,1872

21
Product Liability Law in India,Seth Associates,
available at http://www.sethassociates.com/1749.html .
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872

The Indian Contract Act of 1872, which provides for certain acts, regulates contractual
relations other than the sales of goods and partnership. The said Statute stipulates norms
concerning contract formation, execution of contract, implications of infringement,
compensation, ensures, restructuring, organization, etc.22

SALE OF GOODS ACT,1930

Sale of goods act, 1930 offers for the creation of a selling agreement, subject to a agreement,
prices of purchase, terms and warranty, the expected quality and fitness circumstances,
ownership exchange between vendor and buyer, title change, contract results, consequences
of infringement of a contract of purchase. In Sale of Goods Act,1930 it offers for a remedy for
an violation of the guarantee, damage to non-library goods and breaking the agreement of
sale, aside from the legal redress accessible to an unpaid vendor. In terms of the provisions of
the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, relief could be claimed by an aggrieved party by presenting a
suit before a civil court. This would entail payment of court fee, undergoing procedure of
trial, engaging a lawyer and endless wait due to high pendency of litigation with the lower
courts in India. Generally this dissuaded the aggrieved party from initiating litigation against a
big manufacturer for a small claim.23

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

The year 1986 was a revolutionary year for customers in Bharat. within the year 1986, the
patron Protection Act, 1986 was enacted. In terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a
client UN agency was oversubscribed a defective merchandise or may be a recipient of
deficient service will file a criticism before a consumer forum (either a part or state or
national relying upon the quantum of claims). In terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
if the consumer forum finds that there was a defect or deficiency in commission than it will
award compensation to the aggrieved client.24

There are 604 District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums in Bharat. District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forums have jurisdiction to entertain claims value office 2,000,000 or less.
22
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
23
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
24
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note26.
Since the establishment of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums, close to
2,667,277 (two million six hundred and sixty seven thousand two hundred and seventy
seven) Consumer complaints have been filed out of that 2,424,116 (two million four hundred
twenty four thousand and one hundred and sixteen) client complaints are disposed off. Every
State incorporates a State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. 25 There are thirty five State
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum unfold in varied states all across Bharat. State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forums have jurisdiction to entertain claims on top of office 2,000,000 to
office 1,00,00,000 . This forum also has the jurisdiction to listen to initial attractiveness
arising from the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums. Since the institution
of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums, approximately 472,146 (Four hundred
seventy two thousand one hundred and forty six) consumer complaints and appeals are filed
out of that 361,502 (three hundred sixty one thousand and five hundred and two) client
complaints are disposed off.26 India incorporates a National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum. The National client Dispute Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints
wherever the number claimed is over INR 1,00,00,000 . This forum additionally has the
jurisdiction to listen to attractiveness from associate degree order gone along State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum or to suo moto review the order of National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum. Since the institution of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum
approximately 58,143 (fifty eight thousand and one hundred forty three) client complaints and
appeals are filed out of that 49,095 (forty nine thousand and ninety five) complaints have been
disposed off.27

The Consumer Protection Act,1986 provides for the following benefits to an aggrieved
consumer:

(i) A consumer dispute redressal forum was established in almost every district in
India. This provided greater accessibility to the aggrieved consumers across
India.28
(ii) Evidence before the forum can be lead on a sworn affidavit. This provided an
expeditious summary trial and saved the parties to the litigation from an
embarrassment of trial. Due to this matters were resolved within reasonable time.29

25
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
26
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
27
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
28
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
29
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
 (iii) In India, civil courts are competent to argue in a civil manner. This implied that
more instances were brought before civil courts, and the judiciary always paid
attention to significant issues. The dispose of instances submitted by an aggrieved
customer was delayed. As customer forums are additional to a civil tribunal, it
ensures that such claims are resolved more quickly.30
(iv) Appeals in the form of state and national customer forums again by appeal to a
complained customer, which also enhances the speedier disposition of claims, the
absence of written type in the context of Indian law should have been chosen
before the High Court, whose monitoring is governed by a specific district forum ;
and that should have led once again to delays in the proceedings in the courts.31
(v) A consumer can seek remedy for (i) defect in goods; (ii) deficiency in service
(breach of warranty is treated as deficiency in service); (iii) Unfair Trade Practice;
(iv) Restrictive Trade Practice; and (iv) Negligence. In other words, the relief
which could be sought jointly under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, MRTP Act,
1969 and Common Law of torts can be sought in terms of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. Further, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in furtherance to and in
not in derogation of other prevailing laws on India.32
(vi) Another reason for its effectiveness is that the Consumer Protection Act ,1986
refrains the customer forums from dealing with matters of' commercial' nature. In
other words, no conflict involving an end consumer is entertaining. As customer
forums have no competence over such matters, complaints only relate to a
consumer complaint, resulting in a fast disposal of instances.33

TABLE OF CASES
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980)
30
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
31
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
32
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
33
Product Liability Laws in India, supra note 26.
Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994)
Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948)
Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470 (1882)
Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills ([1936] A.C. 562)
Loop v. Litchfield 42 N. Y. 351 (1870)
Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y. 470 (1882)

CONCLUSION

In India, tort laws have not developed primarily because of two reasons:
1) Concept of Court fees
2) Complex Judicial system
The increase in product liability continues to take place in India, but there is much vigilanced
consumer protection in nations such as the USA and the United Kingdom. Consumer
protection laws are not sufficiently stringent in India because of absence of public
consciousness. Consumer legislation is increasing rapidly now as customers become
conscience of their freedoms and take the problem of defective products more seriously. The
state is finding these stringent laws significant to help the public. The Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, which established several remedial courts to resolve consumer grievances, was the
most significant law.
The courts in India are accessible to the production of defective products with exemplary
damage. This is to hamper the producers when they manufacture and sell the products more
carefully.

OBJECTIVES
The proposed project aims to achieve the following objectives:
 To analyse the national and international perspective of product liability laws
 To study the various acts related to goods and liability theories developed by
courts
 To study numerous cases related to liability for defective products.

METHOD OF STUDY:
The researcher has adopted the doctrinal method of research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Law of Torts by Justice G P Singh
Law of Torts by W.V.H. Rogers
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts by Justice G P Singh
Aspen -Product Liability
Law of torts by R.K. Bangia 24th edition Allahabad Law Agency
Page 321 deals with application of the rule in donoghue vs Stevenson.
Page 326 deals with liability for negligence and strict liability
Page 507 deals with the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BIBILOGRAPHY:
https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-product-liability.html
https://www.justia.com/products-liability
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562,
available at http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-Stevenson.php
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/types-of-defective-product-liability-30070.html
http://www.sethassociates.com/1749.html
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, § 19