Liability for negligence
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (9229) 25 July 1992, 127(1)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: Points raised in "E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co Ltd; Gerber Foods (Holdings) Ltd v E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd" 1992. Hobbs was found to have been negligent in the spread of fire to neighbouring property because care was not taken to remove rubbish before an operation, which involved a fire risk. However, in the first claim suppliers of foam to Hobbs were wrong not to have notified clients that the product was not as fire-resistant as they had been led to believe. The judge said a manufacturer`s duty of care did not end when the goods had been sold.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2830-36 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 68877-1001 |
Points raised in "E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co Ltd; Gerber Foods (Holdings) Ltd v E Hobbs (Farms) Ltd" 1992. Hobbs was found to have been negligent in the spread of fire to neighbouring property because care was not taken to remove rubbish before an operation, which involved a fire risk. However, in the first claim suppliers of foam to Hobbs were wrong not to have notified clients that the product was not as fire-resistant as they had been led to believe. The judge said a manufacturer`s duty of care did not end when the goods had been sold.