Category Archives: Product liability

David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47 | 17 October 1934

ON 17 OCTOBER 1934, the High Court of Australia delivered David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 (17 October 1934).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/47.html

Per Rich J at 118-9:

“..whenever the description of the goods enters into the transaction so that the buyer must be taken to rely upon it to a substantial degree as well as upon the identity of the goods, it is a sale by description. Therefore, if the description is a matter that influenced the buyer and had a material bearing on the decision to buy, even if it was not the only matter that influenced the buyer, then the sale is one by description.”

Goods which only have one specific use are not of merchantable quality if they are not fit for their purpose.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35 | 18 August 1933

ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1933/35.html

Per Dixon J at 418:

“The condition that goods are of merchantable quality requires that they should be in such an actual state that a buyer fully acquainted with the facts and, therefore, knowing what hidden defects exist and not being limited to their apparent condition would buy them without abatement of the price obtainable for such goods if in reasonably sound order and condition and without special terms.”

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) | 18 June 2002

ON 18 JUNE 2002, the NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 was enacted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/

The substantive provisions commenced retrospectively on 20 March 2002. There have been successive amendments, notably those which commenced in December 2002 and 2004 and June 2006.

The Act modifies the Australian common law with respect to civil liability claims in New South Wales, except those set out in s3B.

The Act limits the circumstances in which people may recover damages for civil wrongs and the amount of damages and costs they recover.

The significant features of the Act include:

  • Statement of principles for determining negligence.
  • Modification of causation test.
  • No duty to warn of obvious risk.
  • No liability for materialisation of inherent risk.
  • No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities.
  • No duty of care for risk warning of dangerous recreational activity.
  • Standard of care for professionals.
  • Contributory negligence can defeat a claim.
  • Fixing damages for economic and non-economic loss, including thresholds, discounts and maximum limits.
  • Limiting interest.
  • Restrictions for persons in custody.
  • Restrictions for mental harm.
  • Allocation of proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers.
  • Limiting liability of public authorities.
  • Restricting recovery for intoxicated persons.
  • Exclusion of liability for persons acting in self defence, good Samaritans, food donors or volunteers.
  • Apologies not to affect liability.
  • Limiting damages for birth of a child.
  • Exclusion of liability for trespass or nuisance by ordinary use of aircraft.
  • Costs restrictions.

The Act does not apply to claims (or parts of claims) regarding:

  • Intentional acts with the intent to cause injury or death or sexual assault or other sexual misconduct.
  • Dust diseases.
  • Tobacco.
  • Motor Accidents and public transport accidents.
  • Workers, Victims and Sporting Injuries compensation.

 

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

ON 18 JUNE 2002, the NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 was enacted.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/

The substantive provisions commenced retrospectively on 20 March 2002. There have been successive amendments, notably those which commenced in December 2002 and 2004 and June 2006.

The Act modifies the Australian common law with respect to civil liability claims in New South Wales, except those set out in s3B.

The Act limits the circumstances in which people may recover damages for civil wrongs and the amount of damages and costs they recover.

The significant features of the Act include:

  • Statement of principles for determining negligence.
  • Modification of causation test.
  • No duty to warn of obvious risk.
  • No liability for materialisation of inherent risk.
  • No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities.
  • No duty of care for risk warning of dangerous recreational activity.
  • Standard of care for professionals.
  • Contributory negligence can defeat a claim.
  • Fixing damages for economic and non-economic loss, including thresholds, discounts and maximum limits.
  • Limiting interest.
  • Restrictions for persons in custody.
  • Restrictions for mental harm.
  • Allocation of proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers.
  • Limiting liability of public authorities.
  • Restricting recovery for intoxicated persons.
  • Exclusion of liability for persons acting in self defence, good Samaritans, food donors or volunteers.
  • Apologies not to affect liability.
  • Limiting damages for birth of a child.
  • Exclusion of liability for trespass or nuisance by ordinary use of aircraft.
  • Costs restrictions.

The Act does not apply to claims (or parts of claims) regarding:

  • Intentional acts with the intent to cause injury or death or sexual assault or other sexual misconduct.
  • Dust diseases.
  • Tobacco.
  • Motor Accidents and public transport accidents.
  • Workers, Victims and Sporting Injuries compensation.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Denzin and Ors v Nutrasweet and Ors [1999] NSWSC 106

Denzin and Ors v Nutrasweet and Ors [1999] NSWSC 106 (22 February 1999).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/1999/106.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 1571

Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission & Anor [1998] FCA 1571 (10 December 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1998/1571.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Dente v Riddell Inc [1981] USCA1 249

Dente v Riddell Inc [1981] USCA1 249; 664 F.2d 1; 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 599 (25 September 1981).

http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USCA1/1981/249.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2

ON 21 OCTOBER 1935, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2 (21 October 1935).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1935/2.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Find a lawyer

ON 17 OCTOBER 1934, the High Court of Australia delivered David Jones Ltd v Willis [1934] HCA 47; (1934) 52 CLR 110 (17 October 1934).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1934/47.html

Per Rich J at 118-9:

“..whenever the description of the goods enters into the transaction so that the buyer must be taken to rely upon it to a substantial degree as well as upon the identity of the goods, it is a sale by description. Therefore, if the description is a matter that influenced the buyer and had a material bearing on the decision to buy, even if it was not the only matter that influenced the buyer, then the sale is one by description.”

Goods which only have one specific use are not of merchantable quality if they are not fit for their purpose.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35

ON 18 AUGUST 1933, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35; (1933) 50 CLR 387 (18 August 1933).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1933/35.html

Per Dixon J at 418:

‘The condition that goods are of merchantable quality requires that they should be in such an actual state that a buyer fully acquainted with the facts and, therefore, knowing what hidden defects exist and not being limited to their apparent condition would buy them without abatement of the price obtainable for such goods if in reasonably sound order and condition and without special terms.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088