CPA Claim:

Parties: Group of claimants v Dryways

Tort: Product liability (CPA 1987), general negligence
Loss: Personal injury (gastro-intestinal illness, vomiting)
Who can sue: Anyone suffering damage as a result of defect 2(1)/5(1)
Who can be sued? Under S2(2), persons liable for damage include producer of product, therefore
Dryways liable.
Could also claim against supermarket if branded milk power
What is a product? Any goods or electricity, including product which is comprised in another
product (eg compenent, raw material etc - computer chip, plastic sheeting before it becomes toy)
(S1(2)). Therefore powered milk is product for purposes of S1(2)
What is a defect? If safety of product is not as persons entitled to expect S3(1). This depends on
relevant circumstances, eg manner/purpose for which marketed, what might reasonably be expected to
be done with product, time when product supplied etc. No warnings. Milk is designed to be ingested,
therefore entitled to expect free from contamination. Bar is set higher than for general negligence.
Analogous to A v National Blood Authority. No sense in which Dryways can claim its product is not
designed to be 100% safe (cf Richardson v LRC Products, in which no claim was ever made that
produce was 100% effective).
Is the milk defective? Yes
Causation: Assume on facts. Also recall suggests batch defective.
Defences None available under S4. Dryways appear to admit that defect did exist at relevant time
(S4(1)(d)). Unlikely that no scientific test exists that would have been able to reveal contamination
(S4(1)(e)), but on facts it appears that Dryways aware that disintegration/damage of parts could cause
contamination.
Contributory negligence? No suggestion that Cs did not take reasonable steps for own safety, so fails
first limb of Jones v Livox.
Limitation: Claim must be brought within three years of the later of date that damage/injury occurred;
or when claimant became aware or ought to have become aware of danger. Appears to be within
timeframe.
Overall conclusion: Therefore Dryways likely to be liable under CPA 1987. Advise to settle with
claimants.
[Can they claim CEL if have to miss work? Ask Catherine]