- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-A and Others v National Blood Authority (No 1) (2001)
Core Principle: Natural substances like blood or organs for transplantation can be considered "products" under product liability legislation.
I. Facts of the Case
Core Principle: Natural substances like blood or organs for transplantation can be considered "products" under product liability legislation.
I. Facts of the Case
- Claimants: Individuals infected with Hepatitis C following blood transfusions.
- Purpose of Trial: To determine liability and damages under Sections 3 and 4(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) regarding defective products.
- Legal Basis: Issues were considered under Articles 6 and 7(e) of Council Directive 85/874/EEC (the Product Liability Directive).
- Directive's Purpose: To achieve a high level of consumer protection.
- Public Expectation: Legitimate expectation that blood for transfusion would be safe (though not perfectly so).
- Article 7(e) Defence (State of Knowledge Defence):
- Effective ONLY if the problem causing the defect was genuinely unknown at the time.
- Once the problem (e.g., Hepatitis C contamination) becomes known, the defence is no longer available.
- Finding: Blood contaminated with Hepatitis C virus was deemed "defective" under the Directive and, therefore, the CPA.
- Section 1(2) CPA: "Abstracting" a product is equivalent to manufacturing.
- Logical Extension: Because blood is "abstracted," the CPA covers its supply and use.
- Broader Application: This principle extends to other body parts, such as kidneys (see Veedfald v Arhus Amtskommune (2001)).
- This case significantly broadened the scope of product liability to include naturally derived substances used in medical treatments.
- It clarified the limitations of the "state of the art" or "state of knowledge" defence, emphasizing that it cannot be used once a risk becomes known.
- The ruling reinforces the importance of public health and safety standards in the supply of blood and other biological materials.
0 Comments