Authored By: Lamisha Hasan
CASE TITLE & CITATION
Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd
Citation: [2000] EWCA Civ 348; [2001] CP Rep 23 (CA)
COURT NAME & BENCH:
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
Bench: Stuart-Smith LJ
Schiemann LJ
Sedley LJ
All 3 judges involved allowed the appeal. The judges in this case provided an extremely well structured explanation of strict liability and proved how it functions to keep consumers safe.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21 December 2000
PARTIES INVOLVED:
- Appellant (Claimant):
Mohamed Hussein Abouzaid, an 11-year-old child during the time of the event. The incident happened when he was aiding his mother and sister in adding a Mothercare Cosytoe to a pushchair. When the elastic strap slipped and struck his eye, he sustained severe facial injuries.
- Respondent (Defendant):
Mothercare (UK) Ltd, a substantial retailer company of children’s products such as pushchairs and associated similar accessories. In this case, although Mothercare was not the direct manufacturer of the product, it was regarded as a ‘producer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) because it marketed the pushchair under its own brand name.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The litigation involved a Mothercare product; a ‘Cosytoe’ which is a cushioned accessory for a pushchair created to keep children warm during use. The Cosytoe attached to the pushchair had two elasticated straps with metal buckles attached. On the day Abouzaid got injured, he was helping his older sister fixing the Cosytoe to their baby brother’s buggy.
Whilst trying to stretch the elasticated strap around the fixing point, the strap slipped from his hand suddenly. Due to that, the metal buckle recoiled rapidly and hit him in the eye, causing intense and permanent injuries to his eye, including damage to the retina and persistent weakening of vision. This led to long-term problems such as his education being affected and many other long-term prospects.
The claimant brought proceedings against Mothercare under the CPA 1987, but not negligence because it could not be proven in this scenario. The CPA 1987 decides strict liability for defective products. The argument involved the fact that the Cosytoe was defective as it did not provide the level of safety a consumer would have expected. As a result, the High Court dismissed the claim, stating that the risk was too obvious and the product was not defective.
Consequently, the claimant then proceeded to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The main question that needed to be considered was whether the product was defective due to the unexpected and dangerous incident, even though the design should have complied with the industry practice and there was no evidence of negligence.
ISSUES RAISED:
The Court of Appeal had to consider several legal issues which are as follows:
- Whether the Cosytoe was ‘defective’ under s.3 of the CPA 1987, which means that it failed to provide the level of safety a consumer was entitled to and should be expecting.
- Whether agreement with industry practice or the absence of negligence was needed for a strict liability claim.
- Whether the risk of an incident occurring from the elasticated straps was predictable, and whether foreseeability was necessary to determine defectiveness.
- Whether consumers could reasonably be expected to predict the hazardous recoil of the elasticated straps during normal use.
- Whether consumer expectations of safety should be shaped by the warnings provided, the capability of instructions, or safer design features.
These issues mentioned above obliged the court to judge the boundaries of strict liability and the appropriate use of the consumer-expectation test.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
The Appellant’s argument (Abouzaid):
- Defectiveness under s.3 of the CPA 1987
The appellant stated that the product should be deemed as defective as it failed to provide the safety expectations a consumer should expect. In this case, a child using the Cosytoe would not expect that the elastic strap could recoil and cause serious injury to his eye.1
- Risk is not obvious
The appellant stated that although it is known that elastic strap can stretch, it was not foreseeable to a consumer that the recoil risk was so dangerous. In addition, the product lacked safety warnings and instructions and some design features to decrease the risk.
- Strict liability
Under the CPA 1987, the element of fault is not relevant. The claimant argued that the High Court did not make the right final decision as it was heavily influenced with negligent principles.2
- Safer alternatives
They argued that the manufacturer could have used safer alternatives such as Velcro straps and non-elastic fasteners keeping children and parents safe.
Respondent’s arguments (Mothercare)
- Product is not defective
Mothercare argued that normal consumers are familiar with elastic straps and should have been aware that they recoil.
- No prior accidents
The absence of prior incidents indicated that there is no defect in the product making it reasonably safe to use. Also suggests that this was a rare incident.
- Industry standards and agreement
The product met the safety expectations in the industry. Although, Mothercare was under strict liability, it has been said that the industry showed reasonable safety measures.
- Ordinary risk in everyday use
Lastly, Mothercare argued that all products carry some sort of risk and the CPA 1987 states that products do not need absolute safety.
JUDGEMENT/ FINAL DECISION
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to go ahead, noting that the pushchair was defective under the CPA 1987.
KEY HOLDINGS CONSIDERED:
- The Cosytoe could not provide the level of safety that any consumer would have been expecting, especially noting the fact that it would be used by children and parents. • The risk of injuries to the eye was not obvious enough to warn consumers from the beginning, therefore were unlikely to realise it.
- No prior accidents does not mean it should negate defectiveness.
- Accordance with the industry’s rules and safety measures does not inhibit a finding of defectiveness in strict liability.
- Foreseeability of harm was not needed to establish a defect under the CPA 1987.
As a result, Mothercare was held liable for the injury.
LEGAL REASONING AND RATIO DECIDENCI
Application of the Consumer Protection Act 1987:
The Court restated that the CPA 1987 insists strict liability, meaning the claimant need not show negligence.3 The only question under s 3(1) is whether the product provided the level of safety the public is entitled to expect. This judgment considers the product’s presentation, its intended use, how it is likely to be managed, and the characteristics of foreseeable users, including children.
Consumer-Expectation Test:
The court relied heavily on the consumer-expectation test, later applied in A v National Blood Authority.4
The court found:
- Consumers would not expect a pram accessory to pose a high-velocity recoil hazard. 2. The hidden severity of the recoil was not obvious.
- Parents and children must be protected from concealed risks
Foreseeability is irrelevant:
Stuart-Smith LJ established that foreseeability of the risk is not required.5 Strict liability does not ask what the producer could have foreseen or avoided. The question is simply whether the product met expected safety standards or if it failed to do so.
Industry practice does not justify defectiveness:
Schiemann LJ held that industry standards do not disregard statutory obligations.6 A whole industry may adopt risky practices; compliance does not immunise producers. This aligns with academic writing suggesting strict liability pushes industries towards safer design choices.7
Lack of warnings and instructions:
The total absence of warnings was significant. Sedley LJ remarked that even a simple warning would have lowered risk.8
Alternative designs and feasibility:
Safer designs such as Velcro, clips, non-elastic fasteners were instantly available and budget friendly. This upheld the finding of defectiveness. The court referenced reasoning consistent with the case of ‘Green v British Broadcasting Corporation’9, which recognised that safer alternatives shape reasonable safety expectations.
The Ratio:
A product is defective under s 3 of the CPA 1987 if it fails to provide the level of safety a consumer is generally entitled to expect, regardless of: negligence, foreseeability, industry practice and accident history. This principle applies especially where the product presents a concealed risk during ordinary use.
CONCLUSION:
The case of Abouzaid is a landmark case that reinforces the protective aims of the CPA 1987. The case stands on the element of strict liability being truly strict. It concluded that some products may be defective not because they break, but because of its design and manufacturing exposes consumers to dangers they may not be aware of.
The judgement in Abouzaid had a lasting impact on the UK’s product liability law. It shaped the consumer-expectation test in subsequent cases like ‘A v National Blood Authority.’ It highlights that strict liability under the CPA 1987 focuses on the safety for consumers, but not on negligence or foreseeability. The decision also highlights the importance of protecting vulnerable consumers like children.
At last, this landmark case accentuates that producers and manufacturers must take hazards into consideration that can come from ordinary use and ensure that products do not expose consumers to hidden dangers. Therefore, encouraging safer designs and clear warnings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASES
Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 348 A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289
Green v British Broadcasting Corporation [1997] EMLR 277
LEGISLATION
Consumer Protection Act 1987
BOOKS
Stapleton J, Product Liability (Cambridge University Press 1994)
1 Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 348 [12] (Stuart-Smith LJ).
2 Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 2.
3 CPA 1987, s 3.
4[2001] 3 All ER 289.
5 Abouzaid (n 1) [33] (Stuart-Smith LJ).
6ibid [41] (Schiemann LJ).
7Jane Stapleton, ‘Product Liability’ (Cambridge University Press 1994) 83.
8 Abouzaid (n 1) [52] (Sedley LJ).
9[1997] EMLR 277.
