“Products are defective under CPA 1987 if they fail legitimate safety expectations.”
Claimants contracted Hepatitis C from blood transfusions and blood products supplied by the National Blood Authority. At the time of supply, medical science could not detect or eliminate Hepatitis C from blood products, but its existence was known to the medical profession.
Whether blood products infected with Hepatitis C were 'defective' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and whether the development risks defence applied when risks were known but unavoidable.
The court ruled in favour of the claimants. The blood products were defective under the CPA 1987, and the development risks defence did not apply.
This landmark case established the strict liability nature of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and clarified that products can be defective even when technological limitations prevent risk elimination. It remains the leading authority on the meaning of 'defective' and the scope of the development risks defence.
You're reading the free summary of Product Liability — A v National Blood Authority. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.