Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000] PIQR P164

Facts

• The case concerned a claim against LRC Products Ltd, manufacturer of a contraceptive product, by Richardson, after an alleged contraceptive failure.
• Richardson claimed damages on the basis that the product's failure rendered it defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and/or resulted from the manufacturer's negligence.
• The product at issue was the subject of clinical trials, quality control measures, and included packaging warnings about potential failure.
• The plaintiff relied on evidence of the product’s failure rate, including information from clinical trials and post-market surveillance.
• The central factual dispute was whether the product’s failure resulted from a defect or other factors such as user error or individual variability.

Issues

1. Whether the contraceptive product was defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, based on reasonable consumer safety expectations.
2. Whether the manufacturer breached its duty of care to the plaintiff through negligence in the design, testing, or marketing of the product.
3. Whether causation was established, that is, whether the plaintiff proved the product’s failure was directly caused by a defect rather than other factors.
4. Whether the manufacturer or supplier could have reasonably foreseen the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Decision

• The court held that the contraceptive product was not defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, as reasonable consumer safety expectations were met in light of the warnings and known effectiveness rates.
• The manufacturer was found not to have breached its duty of care; evidence showed reasonable steps in design, testing, and quality control had been taken.
• The plaintiff failed to establish causation, as there was insufficient evidence linking the failure to a defect in the product.
• The existence of clear warnings about failure rates weighed significantly against liability for both statutory and common law claims.
• The claim against LRC Products Ltd was dismissed.

Legal Principles

• Strict liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is determined by whether a product’s safety meets the expectations of persons generally, considering its presentation and warnings.
• No contraceptive product is guaranteed to be 100% effective; some degree of failure is regarded as foreseeable and unavoidable.
• In negligence, a duty of care arises to consumers, but breach must be proven by a causal link between the defect and the harm, not merely the risk of failure.
• Causation in product liability and negligence claims requires demonstration, on the balance of probabilities, that harm was directly caused by product defect—not user error or biological variability.
• Sufficient product warnings and appropriate testing protocols reduce or negate the manufacturer’s liability for unforeseeable outcomes.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that failure of a contraceptive product does not alone establish liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 or in negligence, especially where risks are clearly disclosed and reasonable steps to ensure product safety have been taken; causation must be proven by the claimant.