## 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.


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