Abouzaid v Mothercare [2000] All ER (D) 2436
Judgement for the case Abouzaid v Mothercare
Table Of Contents
A pram had an elastic fastening system which snapped and injured Plaintiff’s eye.
The CA held that the producer was liable since the product fell below the standard of safety that the purchaser was entitled to expect at the time of circulation.
-
The ‘scientific and technical knowledge’ defence didn’t apply.
Chadwick LJ said a simple practical test could have revealed the danger.
Pill LJ said that the absence of a record of previous accidents involving similar products did not constitute absence of scientific/technical knowledge.
The defence was about advances in engineering/science that would throw light on previous problems, which wasn’t the case here.
For Further Study on Abouzaid v Mothercare
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Product Liability Notes (5 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.