Citation

Harland D. J. Consum. Policy 1992; 15(2): 191-206.

Affiliation

University of Sydney Law School, 173-175 Phillip Street, 2000 Sydney, NSW, Australia

Copyright

(Copyright © 1992, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/BF01352136

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The paper discusses the Australian debate in recent years about reform of the law of product liability. A recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission to establish a regime based on causation without the need to establish that a product was defective has been rejected and an Act recently enacted in the federal parliament is based on the EC Directive on product liability. The development risk defence is available but there is no ceiling upon total liability. There are some substantive differences between the Australian Act and the Directive. For example, where a manufacturer establishes a defence of reliance on a federal mandatory standard, the federal government will be liable to the injured plaintiff. It was originally proposed to include a number of more radical departures from the approach of the Directive. These related to the burden of proof, the period of extinguishment of liability, and extra-territorial operation of the legislation. Following strong opposition, the government decided to proceed with the legislation without these proposals, which are to be the subject of further inquiry by a parliamentary committee.