Get Answers
Introduction
In a UK product liability case, a manufacturer may have several possible defences depending on the facts and the legal basis of the claim. The main route for strict liability claims is usually the Consumer Protection Act 1987, although negligence and contract claims may also arise. Defences can sometimes defeat the claim entirely, or reduce the amount of compensation payable.
The strongest defence will often turn on whether the product was actually defective, whether the defect caused the damage, and whether the manufacturer can rely on one of the statutory exemptions. Manufacturers should also consider whether another party, such as a distributor or user, was responsible for the loss.
No defect or no causation
A basic defence is to argue that the product was not defective at the time it left the manufacturer’s control. Under the Consumer Protection Act, a product is defective only if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. If the product was properly designed, manufactured, and accompanied by suitable warnings, liability may not arise.
Even if there was a defect, the manufacturer can argue that it did not cause the injury or damage. The claimant must prove a sufficient link between the defect and the harm suffered. If the damage was caused by some other event, such as misuse or an unrelated medical condition, the claim may fail.
Statutory defences under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
The Act gives manufacturers several specific defences. One is the “state of the art” defence, where the scientific and technical knowledge available at the relevant time was not enough to discover the defect. This can be important in cases involving new technologies or unknown risks.
A manufacturer may also defend a claim by showing that the defect did not exist when the product was put into circulation. Another defence is that the product was not supplied in the course of business, although this will usually be less relevant for commercial manufacturers. In some cases, the manufacturer may argue that the defect resulted from compliance with mandatory legal requirements.
Misuse, alteration, and contributory negligence
If the claimant misused the product, ignored clear instructions, or used it in an unforeseeable way, the manufacturer may rely on that conduct as a defence. A product liability claim is weaker where the harm was caused by abnormal use rather than ordinary consumer use. Faulty storage, poor maintenance, or unauthorised modifications can also break the chain of responsibility.
Contributory negligence may reduce damages even if the manufacturer is partly liable. For example, if a user failed to read warnings or operated equipment carelessly, the court may reduce the award to reflect shared responsibility. This is often a practical and important defence in everyday claims.
Limitation and contractual defences
Time limits can be a complete defence. Under the Consumer Protection Act, claims are subject to both a three-year limitation period and a long-stop period of ten years from the date the product was put into circulation. If proceedings are started too late, the claim may be barred.
In contract-based claims, manufacturers may also rely on exclusion clauses or limitation clauses, although these are subject to strict UK controls, especially under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. These clauses will not always be enforceable, but they can still be relevant in business-to-business disputes. Careful contract drafting and product warnings can therefore play a useful defensive role.
Frequently Asked Questions
A manufacturer can argue that the product was not defective and was reasonably safe when it left the company’s control.
Yes. If the product was used in a way that was not intended or reasonably foreseeable, misuse can be a strong defense.
Yes. If someone changed or modified the product after it left the manufacturer, the company may argue the alteration caused the injury.
Yes. A manufacturer may claim the user ignored warnings, labels, or operating instructions, and that this caused the harm.
A manufacturer can argue that adequate warnings were provided and that the danger was open and obvious or clearly disclosed.
Yes. If the injured person knew about the danger and voluntarily chose to proceed, the manufacturer may raise assumption of risk.
Yes. The manufacturer may argue that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury and should reduce or bar recovery, depending on the law.
Yes. Compliance with industry standards, while not always a complete defense, can support the argument that the product was not unreasonably dangerous.
Yes. If the product complied with applicable regulations, the manufacturer may use that compliance to show the product was properly designed or labeled.
Yes. The manufacturer may argue that the design or warning reflected the best available knowledge and technology at the time of sale.
Yes. A manufacturer can argue that even if there was a defect, it did not actually cause the plaintiff’s injury.
The manufacturer can argue that a distributor, retailer, installer, repairer, or another third party caused the problem instead.
Yes. If the claim was filed too late, the manufacturer can seek dismissal based on the applicable limitations period.
Yes. In some cases, a statute of repose cuts off liability after a certain number of years, regardless of when the injury occurred.
Yes. If the plaintiff’s own modifications changed the product’s performance or safety, the manufacturer may argue those changes caused the injury.
Yes. The manufacturer may argue that the design was sound, and if there was a problem, it was an isolated manufacturing error rather than a broader design flaw.
Yes. Expert evidence can help show that the product was not defective, the warnings were adequate, or the injury had another cause.
Yes. If the danger was open and obvious, the manufacturer may argue that no additional warning was required or that the risk was apparent to users.
Yes. The manufacturer can contend the product was safe when used properly, and the injury resulted from unintended use.
Yes. Depending on the facts and jurisdiction, the manufacturer may raise warranty limitations, disclaimers, preemption, or other legal defenses.
Ergsy Search Results
This website offers general information and is not a substitute for professional advice.
Always seek guidance from qualified professionals.
If you have any medical concerns or need urgent help, contact a healthcare professional or emergency services immediately.
Some of this content was generated with AI assistance. We've done our best to keep it accurate, helpful, and human-friendly.
- Ergsy carefully checks the information in the videos we provide here.
- Videos shown by Youtube after a video has completed, have NOT been reviewed by ERGSY.
- To view, click the arrow in centre of video.
- Most of the videos you find here will have subtitles and/or closed captions available.
- You may need to turn these on, and choose your preferred language.
- Go to the video you'd like to watch.
- If closed captions (CC) are available, settings will be visible on the bottom right of the video player.
- To turn on Captions, click settings.
- To turn off Captions, click settings again.