UK: Hepatitis C Judgment

Last Updated: 30 July 2001
Article by Richard Harrison

A & Others v The National Blood Authority & Others, [2001] All ER (D) 298 (MAR)

Introduction

The recent decision of Mr Justice Burton in the Hepatitis C litigation is the first decision of a English judge to comprehensively review the provisions of the UK legislation giving effect to the EU Product Liability Directive, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 ("CPA"). Burton J held that 114 people infected with Hepatitis C following blood transfusions were entitled to compensation from the National Blood Authority estimated to be in excess of 6 million pounds.

In a lengthy judgment, Burton J held that in determining whether or not the product was defective, the crucial question was the level of safety that persons generally are entitled to expect. Significantly, he ruled that the question of whether a harmful characteristic of the product was avoidable was irrelevant and that it was, therefore, wrong to consider what tests a producer could or should have used to minimise or reduce the risk.

The judge also ruled that the National Blood Authority could not rely on the development risks defence (Article 7(e) of the Directive). Once the possibility of contamination was or ought to have been known to the producer, the producer supplied the product at its own risk. This was the case regardless of whether it would have been possible for the producer to identify in which (if any) of a series of blood products the contamination would actually occur.

It is understood that the defendants have not appealed the High Court's decision.

Background

114 claimants sought to recover damages arising out of their infection with Hepatitis C through blood transfusions from 1 March 1988. The transfusions were given during surgery or immediately after childbirth and, in one case, in the course of treatment for a blood disorder.

The claims were brought under the CPA against the National Blood Authority, which was responsible for overseeing 14 regional blood transfusion centres, and against the Velindre NHS Trust, which had a similar responsibility for the blood transfusion service in Wales.

The Claimants' Case

Section 2 of the CPA imposes strict liability on the producer of a defective product that causes damage. The claimants' case was that all those who received blood infected with Hepatitis C after the CPA came into effect on 1 March 1988 were entitled to recover damages, irrespective of fault on the part of blood producers.

It was agreed that by the 1970s blood producers and the medical profession knew that there was a risk of infection by Hepatitis C in transfused blood and that some percentage of that blood (between 1% and 3% in the UK) was infected with Hepatitis C. However, no screening test to discover the presence of the virus in a donor’s blood was known of or available until 1989, and specific screening for Hepatitis C (which has all but eliminated the problem of infection through transfusion) was not introduced in the UK until 1991.

The Directive v. The CPA

Although the claimants relied directly on the terms of the CPA as the basis of their action, both parties referred exclusively throughout the trial to the terms of the Directive, which was implemented in the UK by means of the CPA. Their decision to look to the Directive was clearly influenced by the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in European Commission v. United Kingdom,1 in which the Commission had sought to challenge the UK Government’s implementation of the terms of the Directive. Although the Commission’s application was dismissed, the ECJ suggested that, in any future decisions made in relation to the precise terms of the CPA, it expected the CPA to be construed so as to be consistent with the Directive.

The relevant Articles of the Directive are as follows:

Article 6

"6.1A product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including:

      1. the presentation of the product;
      2. the use to which it could reasonably be expected that the product would be put;
      3. the time when the product was put into circulation."

A product shall not be considered defective for the sole reason that a better product is subsequently put into circulation."

Article 7

"The producer shall not be liable as a result of this Directive if he proves:

that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered…"

Common Ground

The parties had reached certain areas of common ground in respect of both Article 6 (defect) and the applicability of Article 7(e) (development risks). In relation to Article 6, the common ground was as follows:

  • Liability was "defect-based" and not "fault-based".
  • The purpose of the Directive was to achieve a higher and consistent level of consumer protection throughout the Community and render recovery of compensation easier without the need for proof of negligence.
  • The onus of proof was on the claimants to prove that the product was defective.
  • The crucial question to be resolved by the court was the level of safety that persons generally are entitled to expect. "[T]he test was not that of an absolute level of safety, nor an absolute liability for any injury caused by the harmful characteristic".
  • The expectation in question was that of persons generally, or of the public at large.
  • Safety was not what was actually expected by the public at large but what they were "entitled to expect taking all circumstances into account". Again, the crucial question was the legitimate expectation of persons generally.
  • It was for the court to decide what the public was entitled to expect. It would do so as "an informed representative of the public."
  • There were some products, which had harmful characteristics in whole or in part, about which no complaint could be made, eg products with had obviously dangerous characteristics such as knives, guns, alcohol and tobacco.

The test under Article 6.2 had to be applied as at the date when the product was put into circulation.

In relation to Article 7(e) the common ground was as follows:

  • The state of scientific and technical knowledge referred to was the most advanced available (to anyone, not simply to the producer in question). However, on the basis of the opinion of the Advocate General in Commission v UK, it must be "accessible". (The Advocate General had distinguished between a study carried out by a researcher in a university in the United States and published in an International English Language Journal and similar research carried out by an academic in Manchuria published in the local Scientific Journal in Chinese which did not go outside the boundaries of the region. Burton J took the Manchurian example to mean an "unpublished document or unpublished research not available to the general public, retained within the laboratory or research department of a particular company." This sort of knowledge would not be considered "accessible".)
  • Article 7(e) was not concerned with the conduct or knowledge of individual producers.
  • The relevant time for the purposes of assessing the state of such scientific and technical knowledge was the time when the product was put into circulation.
  • In this case "defect" for the purposes of Article 7(e) was "the infection by Hepatitis C."

Conclusions On Article 6 – Defect

The claimants argued that, as the Directive imposed liability regardless of fault, the question of whether the risk of contamination could have been avoided was irrelevant to the issue of whether the blood was defective for the purposes of Article 6. Although the risk was known to the medical profession, it was not known to the public at large and they could not therefore be said generally to have had an expectation of that risk.

The defendants contended that although the medical profession was aware of the risk, "avoiding the risk was impossible and unattainable." The public did not and was not entitled to expect 100% clean blood. All they were entitled to expect was that all reasonably available precautions had been taken. It was, therefore, right to take questions of avoidability into account in relation to Article 6. The defendants also argued that, when looking at the product and deciding what level of safety could reasonably have been expected, it was essential to consider what precautions or tests could or should have been used. In response, the claimants argued that considering what safety precautions could or should have been adopted by the producer was an impermissible and irrelevant exercise that "allowed questions of fault back in by the back door." In their view, it was necessary to look only at the product itself.

Burton J concluded that the blood products were defective under Article 6 in so far as they "did not provide the safety which persons generally are entitled to expect". Specifically:

  • Society did not know or accept that there was a risk that transfused blood might be infected with Hepatitis C. The blood was not the kind of product that by its very nature carries a risk.
  • The question of "avoidability" was not one of the circumstances to be taken into account in respect of Article 6.
  • The products were defective because the public at large was entitled to expect that blood transfused to them would be free from infection.
  • The question was one of legitimate expectation. The avoidability of the harmful characteristic, the impracticality of taking precautions, the benefit to society or the utility of the product and the knowledge of the medical profession were all irrelevant considerations because they were inconsistent with the purpose of the Directive.

Conclusions On Article 7(E) – Development Risks

Burton J indicated that in determining whether a party could rely on the development risks defence, it had to be decided:

"Whether in order to take advantage of the escape clause, the producer must show that no objectively accessible scientific or technical information existed anywhere in the world which had identified, and thus put producers potentially on notice of, the problem; or whether it is enough for the producer to show that, although the existence of the defect in such a product was or should have been known, there was no objectively accessible information available anywhere in the world which would have enabled a producer to discover the existence of that known defect in the particular product in question."

It was common ground that the risk of the existence of the Hepatitis C virus in blood generally was known at all relevant times. The claimants argued that a known but unavoidable risk did not qualify for protection under Article 7(e) as once the risk was known, the product was supplied at the producer’s own risk. To rely on the development risks defence the defendants would have to show that the risk had not been identified.

The defendants, on the other hand, contended that it was sufficient to show that, although the risk was known, there was no knowledge that would have enabled a producer to discover the existence of the defect in a particular product.

Burton J sided with the claimants, concluding that as the risk of Hepatitis C infection was known, the defendants could not rely on the development risks defence under Article 7(e). Once the risk of a defect was known, then there was a risk of that defect materialising in any particular product. In Burton J's view it was inconsistent with the purpose of the Directive for a producer to continue to supply a product with a known risk simply because he was unable to identify in which, if any, of his products that defect might occur or recur.

In reaching his conclusions on Article 7(e), Burton J was guided by the decision in Commission v. UK, where it was said that:

"…since [Article 7(e)] refers solely to the scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was marketed, it is not concerned with the practices and safety standards in use in the industrial sector in which the producer is operating. In other words, it has no bearing on the exclusion of the manufacturer from liability that no one in that particular class of manufacturer takes the measures necessary to eliminate the defect or prevent it from arising…"

Comment

This is an important decision for a number of reasons. It has long been thought that the Product Liability Directive was implemented in the UK through the CPA in a way that favoured producers by adopting standards that were more akin to negligence, particularly when it came to the concept of defect and the development risks defence. The CPA has always been regarded as more favourable to producers than the Directive itself. If Burton J's approach of going straight to the Directive (and effectively ignoring the terms of the CPA) is adopted more widely, defendants will be deprived of the more favourable wording of the CPA.

The Judge took a particularly strict approach to determining whether a product contained a defect, excluding considerations that would appear to have been contemplated by the Directive as well as the CPA. He ruled out for example questions of the benefit that the product provided to society as a whole and what the medical profession knew at the time of its risks. The exclusion of the knowledge of a "learned intermediary" is perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of his decision. This is likely to have far reaching consequences for manufacturers of pharmaceutical products that are known within the medical profession to have certain side effects but that the consumer nonetheless expects will be safe. In the words of one of the lawyers acting for the National Blood Authority:

"…One wonders whether it is really in the public's interest for a manufacturer of a life-saving drug with known side-effects to have to wait for a retrospective subjective assessment of a court of whether the product is as safe as can be legitimately expected."

Burton J's judgment has been hailed as a landmark decision for consumer rights. What is clear is that any suggestion that there should be a "negligence-style" interpretation of the Directive has been well and truly rejected.

Footnotes

1 [1997] ALL ER(EC) 481

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.