Your will...
...our Expertise
Harmful Products Group Actions
Hugh James has expertise and experience and in harmful product claims. It is ranked first as a representative of Claimants in such cases by Chambers and Partners, the Independent Guide to Law Firms:
"Dependable, solid and national in scope" this team inspires "complete confidence in its clients". "Peers often refer work here, "safe in the knowledge that the firm will handle it". Mark Harvey’s continued success as a "serious player" in the market contributes to the firm’s rising profile. "
Compensation has been recovered for many victims of harmful products such as ordinary household products as well as medical and pharmaceutical devices.
What you need to Prove
In order for your claim to be successful you, as the Claimant, will need to establish that the product was defective and that this caused you injury that you would not have otherwise suffered. In other words you will need to prove that the manufacturer or supplier was liable for the defect in the product and that this caused you injury.
There are two possible causes of action in these cases.
1. Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA)
This Act applies to any products supplied by manufacturers after the
Under the CPA it must be proved that the product was defective; that is "the safety of the product was not such as persons generally are entitled to expect". Once we have proved that the product was defective we will need to prove that the defect in the product caused the damage. This can only be proved on the basis of medical evidence.
The CPA does provide a statutory defence to the manufacturer/supplier provided that they can establish that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of supply of the product, was not such that they might be expected to have discovered the defect.
Time limits
The CPA can only be relied upon if the defect was identified within 10 years of supply and a claim is brought within this 10 year period. Unfortunately "supply" is not the date the product was purchased or received by you but the date the manufacturer put the product out into circulation. It is often difficult to identify that date and so if you are considering a claim then you should not delay. If the product was supplied more than ten years ago then the alternative cause of action may be in negligence (see below).
Whether a claim is brought under the CPA or in negligence then the Limitation Act provides that the claim must be brought within 3 years of the date of knowledge that the product was defective and had caused a significant injury.
2. Common Law Negligence
Under the common law of negligence it must be established that there was a defect with the product and that there was a duty on the manufacturer to take reasonable care to ensure that it would not cause damage and there has been a breach of that duty by the manufacturer because it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the product was supplied that injury was likely to occur.
Unlike a claim under the Consumer Protection Act where the onus is on the Defendant to show that the defect could not have been identified at the time of supply, under the common law of negligence, the onus is on the Claimant to prove that it was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant at the time of supply that the product was defective and would cause injury. This claim is more difficult.
The Limitation Act provides that the claim must be brought within 3 years of the date of knowledge that the product was defective and had caused a significant injury.
Harmful Product Group Actions Case Studies
Bausch & Lomb’s ReNu Moisture Loc Contact Lens Solution
Advanced Medical Optics Contact Lens Recall
Brochure request