## Facts

- Mrs. Pollard purchased a bottle of paracetamol from Tesco Stores Ltd, which was marketed as having child-resistant packaging compliant with British Standard BS 8404.
- Her three-year-old child managed to open the packaging and ingested a large quantity of the medication, resulting in severe health problems.
- Mrs. Pollard brought a claim against Tesco, alleging the packaging was defective and did not meet required safety standards.
- The trial court ruled in favour of Tesco, finding that the packaging complied with relevant standards, and there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect.
- The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the lower court had erred in its application of the law regarding product safety and liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the child-resistant packaging was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
2. Whether compliance with British Standard BS 8404 sufficed to meet safety expectations for child-resistant packaging.
3. Whether the incident constituted evidence of a fundamental flaw or was a statistically possible occurrence within accepted safety standards.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the packaging was not defective as it met the standards required by British Standard BS 8404.
- The fact that the child managed to open the packaging was considered a statistically possible event, not indicative of a product defect.
- Compliance with applicable safety standards and testing procedures served as evidence that the product satisfied the safety expectations outlined in the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- The judgment affirmed the trial court's decision in favour of Tesco Stores Ltd.

## Legal Principles

- The Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes strict liability on producers for damage caused by defective products; Section 3 defines defect by reference to the safety a person is entitled to expect.
- Compliance with recognised industry standards, such as British Standard BS 8404, may be used as evidence that a product meets the statutory safety requirements.
- Absolute safety is not required; standards acknowledge the natural limitation that a small percentage of children may be able to open packaging designed to be resistant.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that Tesco’s child-resistant packaging was not defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 since it met established safety standards, and the incident represented a statistical possibility rather than a design flaw. This case underlines the evidential significance of compliance with industry standards in product liability claims.


Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 393