A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289
The 2001 case of A v National Blood Authority is a pivotal legal decision in UK consumer law, particularly concerning product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In this case summary you will learn all about the facts of the case, legal principles involved, and the ruling.
Facts
C (consisting of 114 people) were infected with Hepatitis C virus from blood transfusions organised by D since 1988. It was known that there was a risk that the samples involved carried the virus, but it was impossible to avoid the risk. In the earliest transfusions from this date, it was unknown that the donor’s blood contained the virus. In all cases of transfusion, there were no tests available that could detect the presence of the virus. C sued D under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, arguing that since D had organised the transfusions, D was strictly liable despite the absence of fault. D argued that the inevitability of risk should be considered in determining the level of safety the public can expect under the 1987 Act.
Legal Issue
Were the inevitability of risk and the cost of precautions circumstances that should affect the level of safety the public is entitled to expect?
Held
Burton J held that the infected blood was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. People were entitled to expect blood supplied for transfusion to be free from the infection in question. Proof of negligent collection or screening was unnecessary. The judge rejected an attempt to reduce that expectation by reference to the producer’s inability to eliminate the known risk. The development risks defence also failed: awareness that such blood could be infected was different from an inability to identify the affected donations. The decision imposed liability for the defective product; it did not decide that the defendants had acted negligently or prescribe a new professional standard of care for every blood service.
⭐ Legal Principle
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, liability turns on product defect, assessed by the safety persons generally are entitled to expect, rather than proof of negligence. A v National Blood Authority found infected blood defective and rejected the development risks defence for the known infection risk.
Significance
A v National Blood Authority separates liability for a defective product from proof that a producer was careless. Its demanding treatment of infected blood should not be converted into a rule that every medical product must be risk-free. Later product cases, including Wilkes and Hastings, require careful attention to the statutory assessment of all the circumstances. The decision also distinguishes knowledge that a defect exists in a product class from the ability to identify each defective unit.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was absence of negligence insufficient as a defence?
The claim concerned statutory product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The relevant question was whether the blood provided the safety people were entitled to expect, not simply whether the blood service had taken reasonable care. Burton J found the infected blood defective despite the practical difficulty of detecting every infected donation.
Why did the development risks defence fail?
The relevant danger of infection was known, although the service could not identify every affected donation. Burton J distinguished undiscoverability of a defect from inability to detect which particular products contained an already recognised defect. On his analysis, the latter did not establish the statutory development risks defence.
Does the case require every medical product to be entirely safe?
No. The statutory test concerns the safety persons generally are entitled to expect in all the circumstances. The conclusion about infected blood was reached on its own facts. Different products, warnings, presentations and risks require their own analysis, and later authorities should be consulted before extending Burton J’s approach.