# Product liability: negligence and Consumer Protection Act 1987

> **Key takeaway:** Routes: negligence (Donoghue) + CPA 1987 strict liability (defect = safety not entitled to expect) + consumer contract/CRA vs seller. CPA damage: PI + limited private property. Defences s.4. Mind long-stop. A v NBA on defect.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/product-liability
- **Keywords:** product liability, Consumer Protection Act 1987, defect, Donoghue v Stevenson, producer, strict liability, development risks, consumer safety

## What is this about?

Harm caused by defective products may be pursued in negligence, contract (if privity/statutory rights exist), and under the strict-liability regime of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part I (implementing the Product Liability Directive concept). Practitioners usually map all three routes.

## What is the core rule?

Negligence: manufacturers and others in the supply chain may owe a duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury from products (Donoghue lineage; intermediate examination issues). CPA 1987: a producer (and certain other defendants) is liable for damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product (s.2), where defect means the safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect (s.3). Defences include compliance with legal requirements, non-supply, not defective when supplied, and development risks (s.4). Damage covers death, personal injury, and limited private property damage above a threshold; pure economic loss is largely outside CPA.

## What are the elements or test?

1. What injury/damage is claimed (PI, property, pure economic loss)?
2. Negligence: duty, breach, causation; who in the chain?
3. CPA: is the defendant a producer/own-brander/importer etc.? Was there a defect? Causation of relevant damage?
4. CPA defences (s.4), especially development risks and later defect arguments
5. Limitation: CPA generally 3 years from actionable knowledge with a 10-year long-stop from circulation (s.5A framework — verify current text)
6. Contract/CRA statutory rights if the claimant is a consumer purchaser

## Which authorities matter?

- **Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part I (especially ss.2–5)** — Strict liability for defective products causing relevant damage.
- **Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562** — Foundational manufacturer negligence duty for latent product defects causing injury.
- **A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289** — Leading domestic analysis of 'defect' and legitimate safety expectations under the CPA regime.
- **Consumer Rights Act 2015 (goods conformity rights)** — Contractual/statutory consumer remedies against the trader seller — parallel to tort/CPA claims against producers.

## How does this apply in practice?

Identify the correct defendant early (producer vs retailer). Expert evidence on defect and causation dominates. Post-Brexit product safety regulation continues to evolve — separate from civil liability but relevant to standards evidence. This note does not cover medicinal product special regimes in depth.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Assuming CPA covers pure economic loss and commercial property broadly
- Missing the 10-year long-stop
- Suing only the retailer in negligence/CPA without producer analysis (or vice versa for CRA rights)
- Conflating regulatory non-compliance automatically with CPA 'defect'

## When would a practitioner use this?

PI product claims, supply-chain litigation strategy, and limitation audits on historic products.

## Quick reference

Routes: negligence (Donoghue) + CPA 1987 strict liability (defect = safety not entitled to expect) + consumer contract/CRA vs seller. CPA damage: PI + limited private property. Defences s.4. Mind long-stop. A v NBA on defect.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*