HASTINGS, JOHN HASTINGS AGAINST (FIRST) FINSBURY ORTHOPAEDICS LTD and (SECOND) STRYKER UK LTD [2019] ScotCS CSOH_96 (26 November 2019)

HASTINGS, JOHN HASTINGS AGAINST (FIRST) FINSBURY ORTHOPAEDICS LTD and (SECOND) STRYKER UK LTD [2019] ScotCS CSOH_96 (26 November 2019)

The Mitch/Accolade MoM THR prosthesis was not defective within the meaning of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. At the time it was supplied, the risks of ARMD and revision were known, disclosed, and accepted by the orthopaedic community and regulators. The product met the entitled expectation of safety of persons generally, taking into account the state of scientific and technical knowledge, regulatory compliance, instructions and warnings, and the context of its use. The subsequent withdrawal of MoM THRs from the market reflected evolving clinical knowledge and commercial factors, not defectiveness at the time of supply.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_96
Parties
Pursuer: John Hastings; First Defender: Finsbury Orthopaedics Limited; Second Defender: Stryker UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Product Liability Action Under Consumer Protection Act 1987 / Preliminary Proof Restricted to Defectiveness of Product; Causation and Quantification of Loss Excluded
Outcome
Action dismissed at preliminary proof stage; product not found defective under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Legal Topics
Defective Product Definition, Entitled Expectation of Safety, No Fault Liability, Medical Device Withdrawal, Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris (armd), Revision Rates of Hip Prostheses
Product Liability Consumer Protection Medical Devices Law Defective Product Definition Entitled Expectation of Safety No Fault Liability Medical Device Withdrawal Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris (armd) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hastings

Pursuer

Finsbury Orthopaedics Limited

First Defender

Stryker UK Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Product Liability Action Under Consumer Protection Act 1987 / Preliminary Proof Restricted to Defectiveness of Product; Causation and Quantification of Loss Excluded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mitch/Accolade MoM THR prosthesis was defective within the meaning of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the safety of the product was not such as persons generally were entitled to expect

Ratio Decidendi

The Mitch/Accolade MoM THR prosthesis was not defective within the meaning of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. At the time it was supplied, the risks of ARMD and revision were known, disclosed, and accepted by the orthopaedic community and regulators. The product met the entitled expectation of safety of persons generally, taking into account the state of scientific and technical knowledge, regulatory compliance, instructions and warnings, and the context of its use. The subsequent withdrawal of MoM THRs from the market reflected evolving clinical knowledge and commercial factors, not defectiveness at the time of supply.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed at preliminary proof stage; product not found defective under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.