What defenses can a manufacturer raise in a product liability case?

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.