## Facts

- Claimants contracted hepatitis C after receiving blood or blood products supplied by the National Blood Authority (NBA).
- The NBA distributed these products without knowledge at that time that they were contaminated with hepatitis C.
- Claimants alleged the blood products were defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- The legal framework involved implementation of the EU Product Liability Directive, imposing strict liability for defective products.
- The NBA argued that any infection risk was a natural characteristic of blood, not a defect.

## Issues

1. Whether the blood products provided by the NBA were “defective” under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
2. Whether hepatitis C contamination constituted a defect even if the risk was not scientifically detectable at the time of supply.
3. Whether the NBA could avoid liability by claiming the risk of infection was a natural product characteristic.
4. The relevance of foreseeability or knowledge of risk to strict liability under the Act.
5. The standard of safety the public is entitled to expect of medical products supplied by the NBA.

## Decision

- The court determined that the hepatitis C-contaminated blood products were defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- It held that “defectiveness” is assessed objectively, based on the public’s reasonable safety expectations.
- The foreseeability of harm or the state of scientific knowledge was not a defense to strict liability.
- The NBA’s argument that the risk was a natural feature of the product was rejected; contamination with a harmful agent rendered the blood defective.
- Claimants could claim compensation without the need to prove negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Strict liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 applies regardless of the producer’s fault or actual knowledge.
- A product is defective if it fails to meet the safety the public is generally entitled to expect, having regard to all relevant circumstances.
- The presence of a harmful contaminant in a medical product is a defect, even if the risk could not be detected by current scientific standards.
- Neither foreseeability of harm nor scientific knowledge at the time of supply provides a defense to strict liability.
- The Act prioritizes consumer protection and ensures compensation to those harmed by defective products.

## Conclusion

The High Court held the National Blood Authority strictly liable for supplying hepatitis C-contaminated blood under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, determining defectiveness by objective public expectations and excluding scientific knowledge or foreseeability as defenses.


A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289