A pram had an elastic fastening system which snapped and injured P’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.