Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Abouzaid v Mothercare

[2000] All ER (D) 2436

Case summary last updated at 20/01/2020 15:56 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Abouzaid v Mothercare

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.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>