Hello, my name's Darren Hackley Green and this is film five in series of 12 films in relation to Tout for the SQE uh the film uh we're gonna do with now, uh addresses the issue of product liability. So I'm gonna look at the uh SQ assessment criteria in relation to this area and what you're expected to be aware of core principles of taught product liability principles in negligence and principles of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Now, obviously statutes uh and rules and regulations and so on. You're not required to know those rescue in detail. Um You know, some specific statutes, et cetera, et cetera, say for ones where SQ think they are so fundamental to the different issues involved. So we've seen with the goss case law specifically SQ mentioned the need to be aware of Rylands and Fletcher. It's a case, but it's also a tortious principle and that's the reason why you need to know it. Um We've got a statute mentioned specifically here. I think you need to be aware of the statute because when it comes to product liability cases, there's three ways to go really common law statute or contract law. Um, the common law and statute are tortious contract law, obviously, contract law principles. Um And the rules are different then in relation to the common law and in relation to the statute. And we'll look towards the end of the film about, well, if you've got both of these, why choose one over the other? And we'll look at the difference between uh the two, so you can actually make that judgment call. So it said actions for product liability can be by way of the common law, by way of the Consumer Protection Act in 1987 or by way of contract, um It could be the fact that all three are relevant and you pursue a claim in hedge bets, but you, you claim in all three in the hope that one of those succeeds or it may be the fact that you can only pursue one because the limitation period has passed for, for the other lots of different reasons. But we'll look as a, as the reason in relation to that uh towards the end of this film. So first off, let's have a look at the, the common law. So ignore a statute for the moment. So the first approach we're gonna look at is the common law approach. Um So what we're looking at there is four different elements in order to show a duty of care, the claimant has to establish the defendants, a manufacturer, the item causing damage is a product. The claimant is a consumer and the product reached the consumer in the form in which it left the manufacturer with no reasonable possibility of imme intermediate examination bit wordy. But you just abbr abbreviate that to intermediate, intermediate examination uh uh e examination that we simplify matters for you. I think. So we're gonna have to look to uh look at there's four different elements in the common law in turn. So first off a defendant is a manufacturer. So liability is imposed on the manufacturer of a product. And that word manufacturer has been widely interpreted by the courts. Uh case is extended, that includes someone who works in some way on a product before it reaches the consumer. So it can include suppliers, assemblers, retailers, installers, repairers of products. If pesos extended this word manufacturer to various different um types of uh individual uh companies, suppliers may owe a duty if the circumstances are such that they are easy to inspect or test the products which they supply, for example, because the manufacturers asked them to do so. You're not going to be a supplier and get away with the fact that like it's manufacturer's fault, they gave me this good. Yeah, I supplied it but it's faulty and it's caused um uh uh an injury to the claimant doesn't happen that way. Um The supply could also be under duty if they actually know uh reasons to suspect as a defect or danger in relation to that product, suppliers may be liable if they carelessly represented goods to be harmless without having made any adequate tests. Although there's no general duty imposed on suppliers to subject all their goods to an exhaustive examination, the duty to examine would only arise in all the circumstances. They could reasonably expect it to carry out such an examination. And among the reasonable circumstances, those where the manufacturer said you need to do so. In essence, before you supply this product to the general public, um be careful when we come um to things called composite products. Um It's worthwhile being aware of this issue. Uh A manufacturer's product is incorporated into a larger product. Um If their component is effective, then the manufacturer of the com uh composite product must also take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of the components supplied by others and can't simply rely upon uh then the manufacturer to use a good design. This is where what we've got is one end product, but it's made up of various different elements. So example could be, the manufacturer uses a steel steering column for a car and then of course, the, the um wheels are made from somewhere else or maybe the gear um shift or the engine. Uh I is manufactured by different individuals, all that is then moved into one composite old product is then supplied to the public. I suppose a more a more common example you can see with boats, caravans, whatever it may be. Um you know, where these elements are incorporated into like a composite product, social liability in those circumstances can be joined in several. So the claimant may sue both manufacturer and supplier or maybe just one of them. Either way the, the claimant recovers damages in forts or pointed joints and several liability. We have composite products. Next element, we've only got manufacturer and it has to be manufactured. As you see that I've seen from the previous slides, it's very wide ranging. Uh again, product, the item has to be a product. Again, uh massively wide ranging the term product cause. Um There was almost any item which is capable of causing damage, doesn't have to be the item itself. It can be the packaging, the containers, labels, instructions uh for use that come with the item itself. So, again, very wide ranging there as well. Homes has to be a consumer. Some consumer includes not only the ultimate use of the product, but also anyone who the defendant should reason we have in mind is likely to be injured by the defendant's negligence. So a parent buys a toy, obviously, it's gonna be passed on to a child to play with child injured by the product. So there, therefore, it's clear the child would have been um the uh obvious to the manufacturer that they're gonna be the ultimate user of that product because it is a toy you know, obviously toys are meant to be designed to be utilized and played with by Children. Now, looking at this fourth, I mean this intermediate examination issue, if there's a reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, which would reveal the defect, then the chain of causation will be broken. We're looking at a nervous access interven. And so we saw that in film three when we looked at causation and then the manufacture of the product will not owe a duty under the uh the what's called the narrow rule. It's common law rule. This doesn't necessarily mean an injured party will be without a course of action. Obviously, as a duty may be owed instead by the party having the opportunity to examine that product that could be with the manufacturer, pass it down to the supplier and the supplier has failed to uh carry out um the appropriate checks before supplying it to the public. A mere opportunity or possibility of intermediate examination will not be enough to exonerate a manufacturer. The manufacturer must believe there's a likelihood of such an examination taking place. And that could be where the manufacturer supplies something which is part of a composite product. And knows that when uh all these various elements are put within the car, the composite product in the car, it's steering column, everything will be uh uh sort of up to rigorous testing. They're aware of that and that may exonerate them from liability because they know there's gonna be this intermediate examination there to test that vehicle once it's all been um prepared and made before being sold and passed on to the uh the general public. If the examination by a third party, for example, a supplier where the consumer themselves would not have revealed the defect. For example, it's a hidden defect. The manufacturer will not be exonerated. What we're looking for is something there where examination would ha would have revealed its elements of this defect, the crack of the steaming column or the rusty bolts or whatever it may be. Um, what types of losses are within the scope of the duty under the common law, it covers any injury to persons or damage to property done by the defect in the product itself. Um However, if the only loss is the defect, uh, defective quality of the product itself, reduction value of that product or the cost of repairing the defect or replacing the product, these aren't covered by that duty of care. The reason for that is their class as losses stemming purely from the defective product of the item as such their pure economic loss. So if you buy an item and uh the iron sets on fire, ok. Um, then you, uh, that's an element of product liability. But if that's all that happened, the iron burned itself as a pure economic loss. Ok? Because that's the item itself has been defective, you can't recover for that. However, of course, if the iron will fire and then burned down the house, then of course, the result of loss, the burning down at the house, you can recover, still can't recover the cost of the iron. Though, in addition to proof of breach, uh as with any claiming negligence, the burden of proof will always rest with the claimant. Um They need to prove the duty has been breached. Usually in negligence where the facts are beyond the knowledge of the claimant, the claimant is able to um raise or utilize the Latin principle. Recip solo to the thing speaks for itself. You can't use that in product liability cases. Just be aware of that. We've looked at Recip solo in film two. And so I've explained the principles behind that maxim of product liability that maxim cannot be used, just be aware of that. However, there is something similar to ras ipso that can be used and that's the principles behind inference. So once uh an inference arises, the court will infer breach of duty. Uh unless the defendant can rebut the inference of breach of duty by proving, proving the defect was due not to the defendant's lack of care, but to some other later problems. For example, the claimants are misuse. So the inference can lead to liability. It's a rebuttable presumption is if it can rebut that inference. So as a claimant need not uh pinpoint precisely as to how the defect arose in practice, it's usually sufficient for the claimant to establish that the product was defective when it left the defendant's hands. Uh How do you prove that well, effectively if the product arrives in a sealed container. So there's no risk of any sort of uh, tampering of that product in its transit from, um, defendant manufacturer to you as the ultimate consumer. There you go. There's, there's your inference that the defect must have been before it left the manufacturer in essence. And therefore, then the manufacturer will seek to rebut that presumption if of course, um there's evidence potentially of that tampering. So the item did arrive but not in the seal container, there was a break or some sort and tampering with um the, the packaging that could lead to effectively the re uh rebutting of that inference. Um What about misuse of the product itself? So where misuse of a product is a foreseeable uh is foreseeable. Um sorry, when misuse of a product is foreseeable, a product may be defective unless appropriate precautions are taken. So, for example, um fitting a one of these caps uh on a detergent bottle that requires such pushing and pulling and uh twisting before it releases the caps. So you can actually get to the, the bleach inside. Uh childproof caps obviously are issuing, issuing suitable warnings as well. However, manufacturers are not always responsible for consequences of misuse. The conduct of the consumer may be so unpredictable, so costly to forestall that failing to design or warn against cities are negligent. What are the common law, um, defenses to an action like this? Obviously, val anticon, all those sorts of elements still apply. We also have the ability to exclude um liability. We've seen this or we see this in a little bit more detail and looking at occupiers liability with regards to excluding liability, but just as a, a reminder, you cannot exclude liability and negligence for a death of personal injury where uh that arises in the course of business or trade. Um However, liability to non consumers in negligence for other loss, injury or damage can be excluded for reasonable tests. Reasonable test is satisfied under a uh unfair contract terms act or the fairness test. If the claimant is a consumer under the Consumer Rights Act, we explore this in a uh a lot more detail in another film in regards to um occupiers liability. So I've dealt with it in that film in more detail. That's the common law approach. What about statutory? So we've got this Consumer Protection Act 1987. I wouldn't worry too much about the year, but I think it'd be aware CPA the Consumer Protection Act in relation to that. A claimant must prove that they have suffered damage caused by a defect in a product. So four elements again that we have to take uh in turn, exactly like we took in turn, the four elements in relation to the common law that a claimant and the statute is obviously therefore very wide. It's not just confined to the buyer or even a direct user of the defective product. In contrast to a claim of the common law, uh uh law of duty and negligence, the claimant need not be a foreseeable victim in relation to coming down to statute statute imposes a strict liability. It's a strict liability offense. We'll look at that in detail how that works with regards to the strict liability a little bit later. So damage itself uh permitted under statute. This is where the different suppliers really significantly with regards to the common law. So in relation to claims for death and personal injury, you can claim for those under the statute without limit whether they damage to private property, it has to exceed 275 pounds. Ok. So if the damage to private property is below 275 pound, you look to the common law, if it's in excess of 275 pounds, then you're able to recover it by way of statute. But bear in mind, of course, what you're looking at there has to be in excess of 275 pounds. But once it's in excess, you can recover the whole amount. You don't have that 275 pound. Like in excess, you can't recover or cover things over and above that, the whole sum is recoverable as long as it exceeds that 275 pound limit. Uh damage caused by a defective product of business property is outside the scope of the act. That's an important distinction there. The property damaged or lost must be ordinarily intended for uh for private use. So that means for example, damage to a private car used for the odd business trip is recoverable, but damage to a company car can never be actionable under statute since the company that owns it does not intend the car to be for private use. It's a very important distinction there. Then we look at the end, I'll summarize in relation to when you use the common law and when you use statute, but you can see straight off the bat, you see some of the benefits here in pursuing it by the common law. As opposed to by statute, the cost of repairing or replacing the defective product itself is not recovered exactly the same issues as we have under the common law actually got this pure economic loss. So like the example I gave you of the iron setting fire, you can't recover for the cost of the iron. You will be able to obviously still in the statute, recover for the cost of the uh the house being burned out due to the fire caused by the iron. So this cause by second element there, these four elements you need to consider in relation to statute. Claimant needs to establish the cause or link between their damage and the defect in the product. When the CPA, the claimant must show that the defect could cause the damage in common or negligence. The claimant must show the defendant's breach of duty, cause the damage to the common law standard element you've seen in negligence anyway, needs to breach of duty. What we have under the CPA uh CPA is to show the defect cause the damage. So a claimant bringing a claim under the CPA must prove they've suffered damage caused wholly or partly by defect in the product defect as defined means uh unsafe. So in other words, the safety of the properties, not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. And that's an objective test. The act therefore applies to products which are unsafe as opposed to products which are simply affected. So whether a product has a defect is determined by reference to the condition of the product itself. So the court's focus should be on whether the product is safe rather than whether there's a specific fault in it. When it comes to looking at this, we look at two different um elements, we look at non-standard products and standard products. So t to non-standard products, um first, a non-standard product uh is one which is not in the condition in which the manufacturer intended it to be distributed to the public. Uh The client, the claimant would generally succeed by showing the non-standard nature of the article in question that and that, that made it dangerous and cause their damage. So for example, that iron, so the iron came and there is a bit of an issue with the fuses in the iron itself. It wasn't meant to be sold that way. So it's non-standard, there's a defect in the thing itself. Um So a product which fails to offer the level of safety intended because it deviates from its design and specification would generally be held to be defective for that reason. That mean it's non-standard. What about standard? So standard product is one where uh it is in the condition in which the manufacturing tended it to be distributed to the public. And the defectiveness then turns on risk benefit analysis. The usual way of testing the risk benefit of balance in a design defect case, maybe to ask whether the risks of harm posed by the product could have been avoided or materially reduced by the adoption of a feasible alternative design. An example of this actually comes out of a case uh itself where someone sued mcdonald's for, they were burned by the hot drink that mcdonald's sold them. Um They argued that product was defective at mcdonald's obviously was successful in arguing against that because obviously the uh avoiding the risk of serious burns would have meant serving the drinks at temperatures which are unacceptable to um to consumers by serving a cold cup of coffee. Yes, you avoid anyone being burned. But consumers, they're not gonna want a cold cup of a cup of coffee. That's why that's that risk benefit analysis has to be undertaken. Also looking at standard products, you have to look at um things like inherently dangerous products and those with side effects. So some products are dangerous without being defective at the risk. They create a part and parcel of benefits they offer. So for example, knives, uh a knife has to be sharp. Otherwise you can't do what you bought it for. Scissors have to cut, but you can't, he can't do what you, you purchase them for fireworks have to explode. That's the whole nature of that inherently dangerous products. Now, such an item in question, the most can be expected of manufacturers in relation to items like that is they provide adequate warnings and reduce inherent risks wherever possible. Um That's why you'll see on uh fireworks warnings about, you know, how to ignite them when to ignite them standing well clear, et cetera, et cetera warnings on knives that say careful sharp, you know, it's obvious uh you do tend to see those warnings, um allergic reactions and side effects. So, a product which carries an unavoidable risk and an allergic reaction in susceptible persons isn't defective. Uh if its overall benefits outweigh the risk uh and it carries a suitable warning. So in essence, a uh a drug which treats I don't know, dementia, but actually has an element of a nut product in it, which would cause a severe allergy to those who are allergic to nuts as long as it comes with a suitable warning. So if you're allergic to nuts, do not drink or touch this product or whatever it may be, then that is fine, that's acceptable. And you've given them that warning and time, elements of safety of a product is judged by reference to the standards prevailing when it's put into circulation. Uh That's the important thing. So things change over time. Say for argument's sake, you got a bunch of fireworks in your loft. You find that been there for 20 years, you look at the instructions on the fireworks and it says, um, stand 5 ft clear and ignite when actually the new rules in relation to fireworks of that nature, stand 20 ft clear because now we've realized over time, the, the risks are greater when you're closer to the firework, et cetera, et cetera. If you adhere to the instructions as they were at the time, that's right. That's not defect in the product because that was the instructions given at the time the product was put into a general circulation. One is an instruction. So a standard product may be perfectly safe if used properly but unsafe if used in an improper way or for an improper purpose. So a risk is not obvious to the user. The product may be defective because it's not accompanied by adequate warnings or instructions. So that drug I mentioned for treating dementia, it's not obvious that it contains a nut product. Obviously, you need a warning there. It'd be important that you'd do. So. Um, there can therefore be no liability unless it's shown the producer knew or ought to have known of the risk of which they failed to warn and the damage would have been avoided if steps were, ought really to have been taken to alert users, uh, had in fact been taken. There's no rule that the manufacturer may safely ignore a danger which is obvious. If a simple design change may reduce the danger to a consumer, then the law may require it. But warnings of obvious dangers may actually detract from safety by diminishing the significance of warnings about non obvious risks. So for argument's sake and with fireworks again, if you don't put a warning on the box, it says, um, do not, um, uh, light was, uh in your mouth, something like that, which is an obvious danger you would think. But if you put warnings like that in, for example, you don't light what's in your hand, don't light what it's in your mouth, don't put it on top of your head and then light it, things like that and it may detract from the principal warning, which is when you light it's stand 10 ft clear from the firework. So by putting all these obvious risks and a warning about these obvious risks. What risks, what you do is you avoid the impact of the warning about the ones that uh sensible members of the public should be aware of if they're using that product properly. So defer must exist in a product again. And the act of product that again is widely defined as we saw under the um common law duty as well. A product means any goods or electricity includes a product which is comprised in another product, whether a component or raw materials are a composite pro uh product would include component parts like an engine of a car steel choice in the building. So in relation to liability under the statute, there are four categories of potential defendants. So we saw in the common law that we're looking at our manufacturer and how manufacturer has been established and the case law to be um suppliers, retailers, et cetera, et cetera. And the statute there specified there's four potential defendants but one of them can escape um any liability. You'll see why in a moment. So for defendants possibility are the producer of the product. So the manufacturer again, the manufacturer is still under the common law uh definition of product, which includes components as well as finished products. That means therefore, the component part is so faulty, both the manufacturer of the part and the manufacturer of the whole product are liable. So that incorporates the composite elements of the manufacturer itself. So it could two manufacturers there with one composite product, an own brander. Uh This is where uh we've got a person who puts their enabled tray box on a product and holds themselves out as being the producer. You see that all the time in the supermarkets, Tesco's own brand of beans. It doesn't mean to say Tesco's has got a bean factory where they make their own beans and can them all and stuff like that as a supplier of those Tesco rebrand it to be Tesco bre beans and then they sell it to the consumer uh importers. So it's a person who imports the product into the UK from outside of the UK in order to supply it to another person. Those are the three main ones. You've also got the potential for the supplier um to be a another defendant under the statute. But remember the terminology, forgetful supplier. Ok. So the supplier is only there as a presidential defendant in limited circumstances. Uh those limited circumstances or when they're classed as a forgetful supplier, which means they can't identify other parties up the chain, the manufacturer, the own brander, the importer, they can't identify those um individuals as companies, then they themselves are on the hook as a supplier uh because they are what's got a forgetful supplier. However, if they identify the other parties in the chain, which arguably a lot of suppliers will be able to do, then they can escape liability. So that's the, um, the thing to think about in relation to that and they're not liable under the act if they can identify the other parties in that supply chain, what you have there, of course is you may have a number of different parties liable under the act uh, for the same damage. So they are effectively jointly and severally liable. Um, look at the nature of the liability under the statute then. So the CPA media requires the claimant to show they've suffered damage caused by defect in the product. It's unsafe product. The act does not require a claim to prove the defect resulting from any fault or carelessness on behalf on the defendant's behalf, unlike the common law. So in other words, a strict liability under the act and that the defendant will be liable without proof of any fault on their part. And that's the benefit of uh making a claim under a statute. A strict liability under the act is advantageous for claimant to compare with a claim of common law negligence. Obviously, with regards to the fact that that's based on proving thought. So under the common law, as a reminder, the claimant has to establish that the defendant has failed to reach the standard of care of a reasonable person in their position in order to prove breach of duty and therefore negligence on the defendant's behalf. Don't do that under statute. Got a strict liability provision. What about defenses there under uh statute, various defenses available under the CPA, which means that although the defendant's liability is strict, it's not absolute. OK. So um one of those core, the, so the common defenses, first one, the defendant did not supply the product to another. So the meaning of supply is broad and encompasses the hiring at lending gifting of the product itself. The nature of that defense is available when it's not supplied. So for example, you've got an employee on a production line who's injured by that product. Therefore, then there's no liability because that product has not been supplied at that point. So there's no liability under uh under the product liability under the statute or there may be liability under the employer's liability, uh rules, et cetera, et cetera. It's another uh kettle of fish, but under product liability under the statute, then there's no liability. Um Secondly, defendants supply the product otherwise in the course of business. So example of that is where a private individual sells a used car, uh car, a producer must establish both the supply by them was not in the course of business and they made and that they made the product otherwise than with a view to profit. So looking at two examples, you may get in relation to that uh that exempts the home baker who donates a cake to a village fate. So they won't be liable under the uh under statute. However, if you have a home brewer who sells dams and wine at the same fate. Well, then they would be liable under statute. There's a different um, approach there. The defect did not exist when the defendant supplied the product. So that's uh a defense to show the product. The defect didn't exist in the product at the time. The relevant time, if the defendant's a producer importer, the relevant time is the time when they supplied the product to another. So the defendant could therefore show the defect was caused by the misuse of the product. For example, criminal tampering in the chain going down or by fair wear and tear and that defense will succeed also have the development risks. Um Defense uh defense only applies in non-standard product cases, case, standard product and non-standard products. Once they actually affects them themselves, they're sold not as intended um to rely on the development risk defense, the defendant must prove that the state of knowledge at the time the product was supplied amongst producers of the product in question, was not such as to allow a producer of the product to discover the defect. A producer would only be able to rely on that defense if they could show they could not have discovered the defect of the any information accessible anywhere in the world. That requirement that the knowledge be accessible will likely be satisfied in the case of say unpublished research or, or even publish work with the publication was in a foreign language scientific journal with which the producer would not be expected to be familiar you mind for limitation. So the basic limitation period applicable to prop uh property damage claims is six years in negligence under the statute of the 87 Act. It's only three years and eight months of the cause of action accrued to the date of knowledge under the statute. CPA. No claim could be brought uh more than 10 years after the supply of the product under common law, li will generous 15 years from the date of the breach. So that's one of the core reasons why you'd pursue a claim under common law. He would statute if limitation is passed for a statutory claim. So again, if we're summarizing this here, so when will a claimant seek to roll up in the common law duty of negligence as opposed to statute? So want damage to property not intended for private use, damage to property where that damage is of value less than 275 pounds. If the product was never put into circulation, if the production or supply, the product was non commercial, the claim is against those who repair certify or inspect products. So that's not not one of the limited uh number of defendants under the act where limitations passed for a statutory claim in the above circumstances, an action under the CPA may be defended completely. And as such, it leaves the claim up with no option but to pursue um the defendants by way of the common law duty of negligence. You may get a question in sqe around the circumstances where you're thinking about how or uh should you pursue the defendant under the common law or should you pursue them under statute? And it may be in light of the circumstances. A statutory route is not the route to go in there. You need to understand the difference between the two in order to reach a conclusion in relation to that, don't forget as well. Um paying for the student to contract law. So I claim it's injured by a product transferred to them under a contract of sale. They may rely upon the seller's employed undertakings as to compliance through descriptions that such quality fitness for purpose under other sales of Goods Act or the Consumer Rights Act. Those in undertakings give rise to absolute obligations. In other words, the seller is liable, the goods did not come up to the standard required by the legislation. Even though the seller had taken all possible care, a reasonable care, they should do so and there's no way to blame or the defect itself. The contractual liability of the seller of course is no assistance to persons injured by the product who are not parties to the sale. The contract, for example, members of the purchaser's family family passes by where it may be. It's that class of ultimate consumers who are most likely to seek a tortious action typically against the producer. So just bear in mind that when you have options and you're thinking about a product liability case, do you think not just to, do you think contract as well? And watch out for questions in relation to the exam, watch out for that question actually gets you and direct your attention to something specific. So the uh what right does the claimants have under the contract or it's aimed at the contract question, the uh implied terms in relation to say Consumer Rights Act or if it states specifically, what right has the claim it got under statute? And you think that may be contract and tort potentially or it may ask specifically about the Consumer Protection Act or Common Law. Just be careful. You make sure you look at the question and what the question asks you before looking at the uh type of answers you've got, right? So have a look at a question in this area. Then you act on behalf of the claimant. The claimant purchased a toaster online from Delta Limited. The toaster was advertised as been a new design which toasted bread twice as fast as any of its competitors on the market. The toaster cost £500 delivery was free due to a defect in the toaster. It caught fire when the claimant first used it to toast some bread and the fire destroyed the toaster. The fire spread to the claimant's work service in their kitchen causing damage, tofting 200 pounds. The fire also destroyed the claimant's work laptop which was next to the toaster. The laptop cost £750 to replace the claimants also burn their hand when trying to extinguish the fire. The burn was minor and healed within two weeks. What are the remedies available to the claimants under the Consumer Protection Act? 1987 A, the claimant will be able to recover for their burned hand. It's been personal injury. The claimant will not be able to recover the cost of replacing the toaster as this is pure economic loss. The claimant will not be able to recover the cost of their laptop as this is business property. The claimant will be able to recover for the damage done to the work surface as the total damage caused exceeded 275 pounds, 500 pound um toaster plus a 750 pound laptop plus a 200 pound damage to the work surface. B the clerk will be able to recover for their burnt hand. This being personal injury. The claim will not be able to recover the cost of replacing the tow service. This is pure economic loss. The claim will be able to recover the cost of the laptop and the damage to the work surface as this exceeded 275 pounds, 750 pounds plus 200 pounds. See, the claimant will not be able to recover for that burned hand as this is minor personal injury. The claimant will not be able to recover the cost of replacing the tow. So as this is pure economic loss, the claimant will not be able to recover the cost of the laptop. As you see business property, the claim will not be able to recover for the damage to the work surface as this was below 275 pounds. The the claimant will be able to recover for their burnt hand. This being personal injury, the claimant will not be able to recover the cost of replacing the toaster. Is that his pure economic loss? The claimant will not be able to recover the cost of the laptop is that his business property. The claim will not be able to recover for the damage done to the work service as this was below 275 pounds and either the claimant will be able to recover from the burned hand. This has been personal injury. The claimant will be able to recover the cost of replacing the toaster as it exceeds 275 pounds. The client will not be able to recover the cost of the laptop as he is business property and the client will not be able to recover for the damage to the work surface as it was below 275 pounds. Correct. Answer is b so the clinic will be able to recover for their burnt hand that being personal injury. See, um per say they won't be able to recover for a minor personal injury. There is an argument for that. There is a de minimis rule. Of course, it's a minor personal injury you can't recover for but two weeks and a burn I think would probably get over the mark in relation to that being recoverable. Of course, don't forget you can't recover for the cost of the toaster. That's pure economic loss that the item itself. Uh So e is therefore wrong and the rules about whether it exceeds 275 pounds is irrelevant. It's, but that is pure economic loss. It's the item itself, which actually of course, which was defective. Um can we not be able to recover the cost of the laptops that's business property? So, you know, under the act, you can't recover the business property and they can't not be able to recover from the damage done to the work surfaces. That was below 275 pounds. It cost £200. Uh The other answers are wrong, of course. Um in relation to a a he said about the work surface, you could recover for it because you actually add up the cost of the toaster, the cost of the laptop and the cost of the damage to the surface and the total more than 275. It's not relevant. It's only the damage to property which needs a total of about 275 pounds and says he can recover the cost of the laptop and the damage done to the work surface again, work surface below 275 can't the laptop is business property. So you can't, you won't be able to recover for it. And they say, because the says you can recover from the toaster, you can't cos of course, that's an element of um pure economic loss. Thank you very much.
Common Law Negligence Duty - Webinar