Product liability: the evidential burden
- FOIL
This appeal concerned a metal–on–metal (“MoM”) prosthetic hip called the MITCH-Accolade product. The MITCH–Accolade product was manufactured by the respondents. The appellant, Mr Hastings, underwent a total hip replacement using the MITCH–Accolade product in 2009. The appellant claimed that the replacement hip used in that operation was defective. He sought damages under the Consumer Protection Act 1989 (the “CPA”). At first instance, the issues in this case were limited to the question of whether the product used in the appellant’s operation was ‘defective’ within the meaning of the CPA.
