Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
action or omission of another person. Therefore,
the effect of this application is that a person is
not liable for every injury, which results from his
carelessness (Keenan, 2000). When the manufac-
turers' products harmed or injured the consumer
or anybody who comes within the foreseeability
range, then only the consumers will be able to
claim compensation for their suffering. In addition
to duty of care, breach of duty and foreseeability,
causation is also should be established in proving
negligence liability. The principle in this decision
was later extended to others who ought to foresee
that failure to take reasonable care might harm
consumers regardless whether the consumers
were offline or online. This coverage may include
retailers, repairers, to those who hire out products,
and those responsible for testing and certification
of products (Scott, & Black, 2000).
The general principle established by Lord Atkin
had also been extended to promotional activities,
which involves supply of free sample of products
or services. In Hawkins v. Coulsdon and Purley
VDC [1954]1 QB 319, p. 333, the court said that
“suppose a manufacturer of a special soap sends out
samples by way of gift to members of the public,
and owing to the negligence in manufacturer a user
of the soap suffers from dermatitis, surely there
is a cause of action”. Manufacturer or producer
liabilities generally occur due to his defective
design or products, when those products cause
damage or injury. Defective design happens when
the engineering processes used by a company to
design a product is faulty, resulting in a product
that is unnecessarily dangerous. Defect in products
occurs when a product is not manufactured as
designed. In defective products, there is no wrong
with the product's overall design but the manner
in which it is assembled is flawed. Manufacturing
defects problem is usually not common in all of the
items, which was assembled by the company but
rather happen in few products only. In the context
of products, the duty is extended to cover prod-
ucts from human consumption, pharmaceuticals,
household appliances, toys to other equipment.
As to the negligent liability of service provid-
ers including the professional advisers, the court
extended the application of negligence beginning
with the case of Hedley Byrne v, Heller & Partners
[1964] AC 465. This case established that when
the negligent statement of the defendant caused
loss, the defendant was held liable in negligence.
The liability established in the case Donoghue
v. Stevenson, and subsequent extension of this
liability to cover others is part of English com-
mon law. The above case is not concern about the
liability of an e-health product manufacturer or
e- health service provider, however, the decision
shows that in order to succeed the plaintiff must
prove that the damage he is claiming is caused
due to defendant's negligence together with other
elements of negligence. The negligent claim could
be brought to the court if the online products or
advisory services rendered caused required dam-
age or injury to the user. Bainbridge suggests that
if computer software cause damage to consumers,
the computer program writers and manufactures
of the software could be held liable. In the case
of computer hardware, a person suffering loss due
to negligence could be able claim from the manu-
facturer regardless of the fact that the equipment
was bought from a dealer (Bainbridge, 2004).
The manufacturer is duty bound to produce
goods or products that are safe. If there is any
manufacturing defect that caused any injury, then
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that
there is a duty on the particular manufacturer to
produce the goods safe. Lord Wilberforce in Anns
v. Merton London Borough Council (1990) 1 All
ER 568 discredited two-stage test for establish-
ing the existence of duty of care. The first stage
requires that the court to ask whether there was
sufficient proximity between the parties that the
harm suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably
foreseeable. In the second stage, the court will
consider whether the duty should be restricted or
limited for reasons of economic, social or public
policy. A third test was established in the case of
Caparo Industries Plc . v. Dickman [1971] 1 QB
Search WWH ::




Custom Search