From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

A v national blood authority 2001

The Times, 4th April 2001 (QB). The claimants contraced hepatitis from infected blood products supplied by the defendant. They claimed damages for personal injury under the Consumer Protection Act (1987). The defendants raised various defences, none of which was ultimately successful. One line of defence was that blood was not a 'product' within the meaning of the Act. However, the court did not accept this -- it is produced; it is sold; it is a product. The Act is not limited to traditional 'consumer goods'. Another defence was that it was not reasonable to expect blood for transfusion to be perfectly free of impurities. However, the court felt that this is exactly what the public would expect. The The state-of-the-art defence failed because it was clear that in other countries routine screening of blood for hepatitis was carried out.