Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 246

Facts

  • The claimant, a young boy, suffered an eye injury caused by an elastic strap on a fleece-lined sleeping bag designed for infants and toddlers, manufactured and sold by Mothercare (UK) Ltd.
  • The injury occurred when the elastic strap recoiled and struck the claimant while the product was in use.
  • The claimant alleged the product was defective and that the manufacturer failed to ensure its safety.
  • Mothercare (UK) Ltd argued compliance with relevant safety standards and contended that the injury was an unforeseeable accident.
  • The trial court assessed whether the product posed an unreasonable risk and if the manufacturer had addressed potential hazards adequately.

Issues

  1. Whether the elastic strap design made the product defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 due to failing to meet expected safety standards.
  2. Whether the manufacturer breached the common law duty of care by failing to foresee and mitigate the risk of injury from the product's design.
  3. Whether compliance with existing safety standards and the unforeseeability of the specific accident excused liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found that the elastic strap posed a foreseeable risk of injury that was not adequately mitigated.
  • The product was judged defective under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, as it did not provide the safety that consumers are entitled to expect.
  • The manufacturer was held strictly liable under the Act and was also found to have breached its common law duty of care.
  • Compliance with safety standards alone was insufficient where actual safety fell short of legal expectations for child products.

Legal Principles

  • Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, strict liability is imposed for defective products that pose risks below the safety levels consumers are entitled to expect, factoring in product presentation, intended use, and supply timing.
  • The duty of care in negligence requires manufacturers to foresee and take reasonable steps to prevent harm, especially for products intended for children.
  • Safety expectations are higher for child products, and manufacturers must anticipate foreseeable misuse by minors.
  • Compliance with formal safety standards does not preclude liability if actual risks were not sufficiently addressed.

Conclusion

The judgment in Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd emphasises the stringent safety obligations imposed on manufacturers of child products under both statutory and common law principles. The case confirms that foreseeable risks, even where formal standards are met, can result in liability for defects and negligence where consumer safety expectations are not achieved.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal