Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. July 2022
  6. From beer to bones

From beer to bones

The recent Scottish product liability case before the UK Supreme Court, a decision concerning a prosthetic hip, leaves some interesting questions unanswered while providing a useful survey of the law
18th July 2022 | Joanna Fulton

90 years on from the “snail in the bottle” case, and Scottish product liability cases continue to occupy the minds of the UK Supreme Court.

The seminal judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson, delivered by (what was then) the UK House of Lords in May 1932, laid the foundation for the modern law of negligence and established the principles of the duty of care.

It involved a decomposed snail in the bottom of a bottle of ginger beer, drunk by Mrs Donoghue, but crucially purchased by her friend, at a café in Scotland. The House of Lords issued a groundbreaking decision that a duty of care could exist outside of a contract.

What’s happened now

Fast forward to June 2022, which saw a rare UK Supreme Court decision in the same area of product liability, Hastings (Appellant) v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd [2022] UKSC 19, again on appeal from the Scottish courts.

This judgment related to a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis manufactured by Finsbury Orthopaedics, part of De Puy/Johnson & Johnson. Hip replacement surgery involves a damaged hip joint being replaced with an artificial one.

The law having moved on from 1932, the case was founded on the UK Consumer Protection Act, which introduced a strict liability regime for defects in products sold to consumers.

In this case, the pursuer/appellant had failed at first instance, and on appeal in Scotland, to prove that the product was defective.

The Supreme Court agreed. The Justices said they had no basis for overturning the first instance judge’s findings of fact. As such, the original judgment stands, and the pursuer failed to establish that the product was defective.

Entitled expectation test

The Supreme Court gives somewhat short shrift to the claimant. However, the judgment is useful in summarising the recent line of cases regarding entitled expectation and the recent UK cases of Wilkes and Gee.

It summarises that the test of whether a product is defective is not what is expected by the particular individual, but one of entitled expectation, objectively measured by what the public at large is entitled to expect. The circumstances that can be taken into account in considering this, and the assessment of risks associated with a product, are to be evaluated as at the time of supply and not with hindsight. However, in determining whether a product meets the required level of safety, a court can take into account everything now known, including information that has subsequently come to light.

Data analysis and historical context

The judgment is interesting in the degree of reliance placed at first instance on Finsbury’s statistical expert, and the extent to which the expert persuaded the original judge to go behind the data and understand its flaws. Also, its historical setting was examined. The pursuer argued that the withdrawal of the product was evidence of defect, as were alerts and notices issued by the regulator and the manufacturer. However, Finsbury successfully demonstrated that the withdrawal was done for commercial reasons which did not support a finding of defect. In addition, the first instance judge accepted evidence from Finsbury’s statistical expert who challenged the information on which the alerts and notices were based.

Consumer protection under European law

The pursuer also expanded on a series of more general arguments on appeal around the purpose of the UK Consumer Protection Act and the underlying European Product Liability Directive from which that derived. In particular, he said the judge’s approach was contrary to the principle of effectiveness in EU law and had made it excessively difficult to prove defect. The pursuer said he had effectively been required to prove his case by statistics, given that scientific evidence on the performance of the product was scarce due to its lack of time on the market. He further argued that the directive should be interpreted in favour of the consumer, as that was in line with its stated objective of consumer protection. As such, the judge should be able to draw an inference from the withdrawal of the product from the market, or at least preclude the manufacturer from taking advantage of the withdrawal, which meant that data on the product was limited. Lastly, the pursuer argued that the principles of fairness and common sense called for a benevolent application of the Act, again based on the lack of available data.

However, while these would have proved interesting arguments to consider, the Supreme Court did not do so given its principal finding. These points therefore remain untested.

The Author

Joanna Fulton is a partner with Burness Paull

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: July 2022
  • Book reviews: July 2022
  • Reading for pleasure: July 2022

Perspectives

  • Opinion: Elaine Farquharson-Black
  • President's column: July 2022
  • Editorial: Rights at stake
  • Profile: Brian Wood
  • Viewpoints: Gender question

Features

  • Dreams to dust
  • The power of emotion in law
  • Rights without remedies?
  • Not proven and back again: an academics’ tale
  • Legal aid: a gap still to bridge
  • Interim aliment: barred by agreement?
  • New Ways – less conflict?
  • Tradecraft tips

Briefings

  • Civil court: Issues on appeal
  • Licensing: Minimum pricing – a genuine impact?
  • Insolvency: How to admit joint creditor claims
  • Tax: windfall and plastic packaging taxes raise stakes
  • Immigration: Asylum system overhauled
  • Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal: July 2022
  • In-house: In with the stonework
  • Property: Living with the Register of Overseas Entities

In practice

  • OPG update: July 2022
  • Public policy highlights: July 2022
  • Gear up for the Scottish Legal Walks
  • Disabled solicitor support group proposed
  • Risk: Cybercrime – the hybrid worker prey
  • Ask Ash: Piling it on
  • TRS: time for a trusts trawl
  • Know people, know business
  • High street and hybrid
  • Appreciation: Ian Leslie Shaw Balfour
  • The Expert Witness Directory 2022
  • Expert witness: case law update

Online exclusive

  • Court opportunities in a post-pandemic world
  • Are you resilient to a ransomware attack?
  • From beer to bones
  • Strikes and infections: the employment implications
  • Subsidy control: the new UK regime

In this issue

  • Why go for customised case management software?
  • How to go paperless in your law firm

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited