AIMS OF 1991 ACT
• Section 11 – supplements, and does not exclude, common law rights .
• Section 2 ( 1 ) – producer shall be liable in damages for damage caused wholly or
in part by a defect in his product
• Section 13 – does not apply to products put into circulation in EU before
commencement of Act
• Section 4 – strict liability – onus is on plaintiff to prove the damage, the defect and
the causal relationship between the defect and damage.
DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS ACT 1991
The cause of action is made up of four elements: i. Producer; ii. Damage; iii. Defect; iv.
Product.
Section 2(2) provides that a ‘producer’ includes the following:
• manufacturer/producer of a finished product
• manufacturer/producer of any raw material or component part of the product
• person who carries out the initial processing of a product of the soil, fisheries and
game
• any person who puts his name or trademark to a product
• any person who imports the product into a member state from outside the EU in
the ordinary course of business
WHO IS LIABLE AS A ‘PRODUCER’ UNDER THE ACT?
‘PRODUCER’
• Section 2(3) – where the actual producer cannot be reasonably identified by the
consumer, the supplier of the product will be liable where:
a) the injured party requests the supplier to identify the producer
b) that request is made within a reasonable time after damage occurs
c) the supplier fails, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, either to
comply with the request or to identify the person who supplied the products to him
Ó hAonghusa v. DCC plc [2011] IEHC 300
McGarry v. McGarry & Ors. [2015] IEHC 426
o “88. Assembly is a process which involves the putting of things together to make
something. … The assembly of component parts although none of which are
manufactured by the assembler but resulting in the production of a product can
nevertheless be properly described as and coming within the meaning of the term
“manufacturing”. … The incident table was assembled for the purposes of display
and sale by McArdles on behalf of the third defendant. When assembled the table
constituted a finished product which the third defendant then sold to the 1st and
2nd defendants.
o 89. Accordingly, the court finds that the third defendant was also a producer within
the meaning of the Act of 1991 and is liable to the plaintiff for breach of statutory
duty as well as in common law negligence.”
• Section 11 – supplements, and does not exclude, common law rights .
• Section 2 ( 1 ) – producer shall be liable in damages for damage caused wholly or
in part by a defect in his product
• Section 13 – does not apply to products put into circulation in EU before
commencement of Act
• Section 4 – strict liability – onus is on plaintiff to prove the damage, the defect and
the causal relationship between the defect and damage.
DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS ACT 1991
The cause of action is made up of four elements: i. Producer; ii. Damage; iii. Defect; iv.
Product.
Section 2(2) provides that a ‘producer’ includes the following:
• manufacturer/producer of a finished product
• manufacturer/producer of any raw material or component part of the product
• person who carries out the initial processing of a product of the soil, fisheries and
game
• any person who puts his name or trademark to a product
• any person who imports the product into a member state from outside the EU in
the ordinary course of business
WHO IS LIABLE AS A ‘PRODUCER’ UNDER THE ACT?
‘PRODUCER’
• Section 2(3) – where the actual producer cannot be reasonably identified by the
consumer, the supplier of the product will be liable where:
a) the injured party requests the supplier to identify the producer
b) that request is made within a reasonable time after damage occurs
c) the supplier fails, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, either to
comply with the request or to identify the person who supplied the products to him
Ó hAonghusa v. DCC plc [2011] IEHC 300
McGarry v. McGarry & Ors. [2015] IEHC 426
o “88. Assembly is a process which involves the putting of things together to make
something. … The assembly of component parts although none of which are
manufactured by the assembler but resulting in the production of a product can
nevertheless be properly described as and coming within the meaning of the term
“manufacturing”. … The incident table was assembled for the purposes of display
and sale by McArdles on behalf of the third defendant. When assembled the table
constituted a finished product which the third defendant then sold to the 1st and
2nd defendants.
o 89. Accordingly, the court finds that the third defendant was also a producer within
the meaning of the Act of 1991 and is liable to the plaintiff for breach of statutory
duty as well as in common law negligence.”
