Evans asked for his car to have toughened glass made by this company. A year later, the windows smashed while driving, injuring him, his wife and his son. He brought an action against the manufacturers, but failed to establish that they have breached their duty. It was because in that course of year he might have done something with the window, and couldn’t establish whether it was the manufacturers or the fitters. 

The claimant got dermatitis from wearing the swimming suit from that manufacturer. the only way dermatitis could be in the clothing was that someone made a mistake at the company. The court could infer that someone at the company had to make the mistake and the burden is on the manufacturer to show differently.

·      BDH delivered some chemicals to Vacwell but failed to explain that they would explode if they were in contact with water. One of the employees put the chemicals in the sink, causing an explosion so big that it blew up the land. Damages were reduced to contributory negligence because it was not deemed appropriate to put the chemicals in the sink in the first place.

HOL decision on the recovery of pure economic loss in Tort. It is considered to overrule the decisions in Anna v Merton London BC. The defendant, a local authority, failed to inspect the foundations of a building adequately, with the result that building became dangerously unstable. The claimant, being unable to raise any money for repairs, had to sell the house at a considerable loss, which he sought to recover from a District Council. The action failed as the loss was identified as pure economic loss. The HOS overruled Anns and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury. 

Allegation that defective tampons resulted in TSS

(Toxic Shock Syndrome) caused by tampons. Here you have the claimant that used the tampons for a number of years, occasionally reading the warnings on the back. Consumers were advised what to do if any symptoms manifested, which was also printed on the outside of the box. She said that they failed to warn her adequately of the harm. The public expectations test was discussed, and one of the suggestions were that the duty would be that a box would contain a clear warning and that consumers would be directed to read the internal leaflet for details. The judge was satisfied that the leaflet met the requirements and rejected any suggestions that the consumers throw these away. It was held that the manufacturer took all the necessary steps with the duty that was owned.

In this case a condom failed and resulted in an unexpected pregnancy. A condom was used by a marriage, suggesting that the product was defective. The claim is for the cost of bringing up the child. They claimed it was defective because it failed its original purpose. The court looked at the case, and the failure of the product and they considered whether there was a defect in the manufacturing of the product. They inspected it whether there were anything wrong with the product. Looked at used expectations which was that it is not a 100% affective. Is it fair to assume that condoms will not fail? There were no claims made by the defendants that it will never fail, and nobody can suppose any method is a 100% affective.

A child’s sleeping bag, which is on the buggy, who is trying to fasten a seat-bealt which then bounces off and hits the child in the eye causing permanent damage to they eye. Mothercare argued that there were never reports of this kind of injury and therefore it wasn’t defected, plus the design was essential to it working (can’t expect anything different). This went up to the CA and they said that it should have never caused that type of harm, meaning that something went wrong somewhere. This severe consequence means there was a defect in the product.