Abouzaid v Mothercare UK Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 348

C tried to attach a product bought from D to a pushchair. One of the elastic straps slipped from his grasp and hit him in the eye. C was taken to A&E. C was told his eye was not damaged and sent home with eye cream. Over the next 3 days, the eye became painful and C returned to hospital. He was referred to two eye specialist hospitals. C was found to have lost useful vision in his injured eye. Medical evidence suggested that the delay in diagnosis did not influence the outcome. C sued D as the producer of a defective product under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. C succeeded at first instance. D appealed on the grounds that since scientific and technical knowledge (accident reports concerning the product) did not exist at the time of the accident.

• Could D be held liable as the manufacturer of a defective product if the risk of injury stemming from the product had not been brought to D’s attention previously?

The Court of Appeal upheld liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The fastening presented a risk which made the product less safe than people were generally entitled to expect. The claimant did not have to prove that the producer actually appreciated the danger or knew of an earlier similar accident. The development-risks argument also failed: the absence of previous accident reports was not a gap in scientific or technical knowledge preventing discovery of the risk. The danger could have been identified using knowledge available when the product was supplied. The statutory claim therefore required proof of defect and causation, rather than proof that the manufacturer had ignored an existing accident history.

A product is defective where its safety falls below what people generally are entitled to expect. The producer's lack of knowledge of earlier accidents does not itself establish the statutory development-risks defence or defeat liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Abouzaid separates product defect from negligent manufacture. A producer may escape a negligence claim because the danger was not reasonably foreseeable yet remain liable under the statutory safety standard. The recoil mechanism and absence of adequate warning mattered, rather than proof of previous identical injuries. Read the case alongside the Consumer Protection Act 1987, sections 3 and 4, and avoid treating strict liability as liability for every accident involving a product.