[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by McCrack

I am not sure what you are actually querying here. What you have quoted means that the retailer in the absence of identifying the manufacturer is wholly liable for a selling a defective product.

What I’m stating is that there is no liability on the vendor by this act where the mnf is EU and is clearly identified. And the mnf name in my case is clearly stamped on the drill and it’s German.

[davo10]

Mccrack in another forum the op said he jammed the drill bit in the wood which is mis-use of the tool, this is a powerfull machine so instead of driving the bit forward the machine recoiled backward when he pressed the trigger.

[McCrack]

Originally Posted by mrjoneill

What I’m stating is that there is no liability on the vendor by this act where the mnf is EU and is clearly identified. And the mnf name in my case is clearly stamped on the drill and it’s German.

Why should there be when an Act such as this imposes strict liability on the manufacturer of a defective product? It would be unfair otherwise. Strict liability means negligence doesn't have to be shown/proved.

As a consumer you are not prejudiced in seeking compensation for personal injuries caused from a defective product whatsoever. The legislation is actually very pro-consumer/injured party. A lacuna you suggested before would suggest that an injured person from a defective product would be left without any redress but that is not the case at all.

[baords dyslexic]

Can we add some more information here from the other thread it seems you were using an SDS drill designed for drilling masonary with an adaptor in the SDS chuck to hold a spade bit and drilling wood.

Was the adaptor you used supplied with the drill?

If it was then you might have a case if not it really is your own fault.

[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by McCrack

Why should there be when an Act such as this imposes strict liability on the manufacturer of a defective product? It would be unfair otherwise. Strict liability means negligence doesn't have to be shown/proved.

As a consumer you are not prejudiced in seeking compensation for personal injuries caused from a defective product whatsoever. The legislation is actually very pro-consumer/injured party. A lacuna you suggested before would suggest that an injured person from a defective product would be left without any redress but that is not the case at all.

I have never used the words “strict liability”, these are your words not mine. And my understanding of “strict liability” is that the plaintiff/complainant has only to establish such and such happened, this has nothing to do with negligence.
As for the liability of the vendor this seems to come under the common law rules of “negligence” rather than statutory. What I'm stating is if there was greater statutory constraints on the vendor it would make the vendor much more cautious of what they sell.

[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by baords dyslexic

Can we add some more information here from the other thread it seems you were using an SDS drill designed for drilling masonary with an adaptor in the SDS chuck to hold a spade bit and drilling wood.

Was the adaptor you used supplied with the drill?

If it was then you might have a case if not it really is your own fault.

I don’t know what expertise you being to the table as in a parallel thread you have rested your case without explanation and here you seek further information before going on to make judgement is also without explanation. I don’t see what is your point is here either as a spade drill-bit can come in sds shaft form too. And just it was an sds drill does not make it strictly a masonry drill, it’s in fact a multipurpose drill and was sold as such. It has hammer action and non hammer action which is used for wood as well as a chisel action. And for some peculiar reason you decide if it came with an sds shafted chuck it radically changes the matter is without explanation. It did come with an sds shafted chuck but I can’t see what radically difference that makes with the matter.

[Pkiernan]

Why don't you stop giving out to people who disagree with you, and find a solicitor and sue the retailer?

Then report back if you are successful. Better than moaning on about it here on the Forums.

I think you did not use the drill correctly. Perhaps a solicitor/judge/jury will disagree with me.

[Pkiernan]

"Quick...somebody call me a doctor solicitor"

[McCrack]

Originally Posted by mrjoneill

I have never used the words “strict liability”, these are your words not mine. And my understanding of “strict liability” is that the plaintiff/complainant has only to establish such and such happened, this has nothing to do with negligence.
As for the liability of the vendor this seems to come under the common law rules of “negligence” rather than statutory. What I'm stating is if there was greater statutory constraints on the vendor it would make the vendor much more cautious of what they sell.

I mentioned "strict liability" because the 1991 Act is a strict liability Act. It helps explain to you the lacuna you seem to think exists in the legislation vis a vis the retailer escaping liability.

You're right when you say the plaintiff only has to show the defect and the injury under the 1991 Act. There is no need to show negligence. That essentially is what strict liability is. Consequently it's indulgent towards injured persons such as yourself. The trade-off for this indulgence is that the retailer can (but not always) be absolved from liability for selling a defective product.

You say that there should be more strict statutory controls that what is there at the minute on vendors in what they sell. I think that would be too onerous (and the legislature seems to agree) simply because the retailer is the seller and wouldn't have the technical expertise to be satisfied products it sells are free from defects. Common negligence does however apply to retailers so they are under a duty of care and can be sued on that basis.

In any event you have identified the manufacturer and from reading your previous posts you have done a lot of the leg work for a solicitor to instruct to see whether you have a good cause of action against the manufacturer (and possibly the distributor/retailer as co-defendants)

[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by McCrack

I mentioned "strict liability" because the 1991 Act is a strict liability Act. It helps explain to you the lacuna you seem to think exists in the legislation vis a vis the retailer escaping liability.

You're right when you say the plaintiff only has to show the defect and the injury under the 1991 Act. There is no need to show negligence. That essentially is what strict liability is. Consequently it's indulgent towards injured persons such as yourself. The trade-off for this indulgence is that the retailer can (but not always) be absolved from liability for selling a defective product.

You say that there should be more strict statutory controls that what is there at the minute on vendors in what they sell. I think that would be too onerous (and the legislature seems to agree) simply because the retailer is the seller and wouldn't have the technical expertise to be satisfied products it sells are free from defects. Common negligence does however apply to retailers so they are under a duty of care and can be sued on that basis.

In any event you have identified the manufacturer and from reading your previous posts you have done a lot of the leg work for a solicitor to instruct to see whether you have a good cause of action against the manufacturer (and possibly the distributor/retailer as co-defendants)

I don’t see action for damages against the mnf amounting to strict liability in that it would be just sufficient for me to establish the mnf manufactured the tool and I suffered injury as a result. I do concede “civil strict liability” is more ambiguous than criminal but I still would have to establish other factors before such liability would fall into place. That is it’s not just sufficient to establish that such a company manufactured the tool and I as a consequence suffered the injury. I would have to establish there was FAULT with the mnf in that there was noncompliance with relevant harmonizing standards, and this would involve having someone giving professional technical evidence to this effect and the mnf should have such awareness. I’m quite sure the mnf would be raising the frequent defense as in such cases of plaintiff misuse along with many others. I’m not aware of any stipulation to express declaration of “strict liability” in the legislation.

On the other hand my understanding of negligence is that of a common law remedy that primarily involves foresight to the dangers where there is proximity between parties resulting in loss. I’m sure the vendor will put forward a defense to this and I’m sure a substantial one to rebuff my claim.


I don’t necessarily agree with your synopsis on the reason there is no statutory liability on the vendor. Rather I look at it as the EU looking abstractly at the EU as a single entity whereas it’s a much more complex, that of nation states having devolved some of their powers but still retaining incompatible systems. I can’t serve a writ on a non Irish entity to appear in an Irish court without their cooperation and judgements got in Irish courts on foreign entities depend on the goodwill of the foreign jurisdiction to back them. I understand there is EU Regulations on this but just wonder what in practice the efficacy of it is as there are language barriers, different legal systems and the whole logistics of getting incompatible systems meshing.


I would argue due to the above difficulties and the point of contact is between the consumer and the vendor and vendor and mnf it would be much easier and streamlined for the consumer to have this option. The vendor usually has much greater financial muscle could be enabled to pursue judgments got against it by consumers to recover damages against the mnf and after all it’s between these entities that the contractual relationship exists.


I have got some leg work done and I wish to thank those who assisted and gave pointers in the right direction but I have not made contact with anyone who has firsthand experience of product liability litigation and how they run.

[davo10]

Have you given due consideration that you were at fault for jamming the bit and mis-used the appliance? Are you looking for someone else to blame for your inept handling of the device?

[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by davo10

Have you given due consideration that you were at fault for jamming the bit and mis-used the appliance? Are you looking for someone else to blame for your inept handling of the device?

Repeat from other thread
It’s the nature of the beast that drill bits get snagged especially spade-bits and hole-drill-bits whether they are for concrete or timber.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...6647096&page=2


This is something that the mnf and the vendor should have being aware of and thus the need to have a safe product.

[davo10]

If something wraps around the blades of a lawn mower while it's on, you don't put your hands in to free it or you lose your fingers, if a drill bit jams you don't keep your finger on the trigger, it's common sense and you should have known it could injure you.

[mrjoneill]

Originally Posted by davo10

If something wraps around the blades of a lawn mower while it's on, you don't put your hands in to free it or you lose your fingers, if a drill bit jams you don't keep your finger on the trigger, it's common sense and you should have known it could injure you.

Where did u get the idea I used my hand to free a snagged drill bit???????????????
My hand was not wrapped around a drill-bit rather a drill wrapped my hand around it.

[davo10]

I'm sitting here with 3 builders and told them your situation, all 3 said a powerful drill will continue to rotate when bit jams and the more powerfull the drill the more powerfully it will rotate, if the bit is stuck the powerfull motor will cause the drill itself to turn if you keep pressing the trigger.