Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000]
Court: Queen's Bench Division
Facts: In Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000] P.I.Q.R. P164, the claimant, C, and her husband decided to use contraception after having two children. On May 20, 1995, after engaging in sexual intercourse, C discovered that the condom had torn, leading to an unwanted pregnancy. C sued the condom manufacturer, D, under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on two grounds:
C claimed the tear was caused by ozone damage to the latex, which occurred before the condom left the factory.
C asserted that the mere existence of the tear indicated that the product was defective, even without pinpointing the exact defect.
D acknowledged ozone damage but argued it occurred after the condom was used and left in a cupboard.
Issues: Did the existence of the tear in the condom prove that it was defective when it left the factory?
Held: The Queen’s Bench Division ruled in favor of D, rejecting C's claims. The court found that the evidence supported D's argument that the ozone damage happened post-use and that the fracture did not demonstrate a defect at the time of manufacture.
Key Judicial Statement: Mr. Justice Kennedy stated that “the fracture of the condom by itself did not prove a pre-existing defect.” He noted that while users expect condoms to prevent pregnancy, they do not expect them to be infallible, and expert testimony indicated that failures can occur in all tested condoms. The court concluded that the pregnancy was avoidable, as C could have utilized the morning-after pill.
💡 Leveluplaw: emphasizes that a product defect must be demonstrated through concrete evidence of a pre-existing flaw rather than mere occurrence of a failure. The court ruled that while condoms should be effective, users cannot reasonably expect them to be 100% reliable, and the possibility of user agency (i.e., taking the morning-after pill) plays a role in determining liability. This contrasts with cases like A v National Blood Authority, where public health expectations demand higher standards of safety, illustrating different legal thresholds for product defects in consumer law.