Liability of the Manufacturer under Tort of Negligence on the Issue of Halal

Nasihah Naimat; Elistina Abu Bakar; Afida Mastura Muhammad Arif

doi:10.47405/mjssh.v7i10.1808

Nasihah Naimat Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Melaka, Malaysia.
Elistina Abu Bakar Department of Resource Management and Consumer Studies, Faculty of Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Afida Mastura Muhammad Arif Department of Resource Management and Consumer Studies, Faculty of Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i10.1808

Keywords: Tort, Negligence, Manufacturer, Consumer

Abstract

The tort of negligence provides a legal remedy. A consumer who suffers injury due to the negligence of a manufacturer will be able to bring a suit under the tort of negligence. This is because a person owes a duty of care to anybody who is directly and closely affected by the action or omission of another person. The effect of this application is that a person is liable for every injury that results from his carelessness. Therefore, the aim of this article is to examine the extent to which the tort of negligence is capable of imposing liability on manufacturers and protecting consumers on the issue of halal. Whether the tort of negligence is available and applicable in providing protection to the consumer on the issue of halal. By applying a doctrinal approach based on the qualitative methodology of legal research, this research involved an analysis of the tort of negligence as well as court cases. This article demonstrates that the tort of deceit has various problems and is not a viable option for consumers in seeking protection on the issue of halal.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdul Majid Nabi Baksh & Krishnan Arjunan. (2014). Business Law in Malaysia. LexisNexis.

Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital Management [1967] 1 QB 428

Bhamra v Dubb t/a Lucky Caterers [2010] EWCA Civ 13

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781

Cavico, F. J., Mujtaba, B. G., Muffler, S., Samuel, M., & Polito, N. M. (2018). Manufacturer, supermarket, and grocer liability for contaminated food and beverages due to negligence, warranty, and liability laws. Economy, 5(1), 17-39.

David, W. O. (1991). Consumer Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Blackstone Press Limited

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2007). Contract Law (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] 3 All ER 305

Glasgow Corporation v Muir (1943) AC 448

Goh Sze Ching v Pizza Hut Restaurant Sdn Bhd [2011] 5 LNS 33

Heaven v Pender [1883] 11 QBD 503

Heuston, R.F.V., & Buckley, R. A. (1996). Salmon and Heuston on the Law of Torts. Sweet & Maxwell.

Lochgelly Iron & Coal v M Mullan [1934] AC 1: 25

Loganathan Krishnan. (2006). An Insight into the Law of Product Safety. Malayan Law Journal, 5(xxx), 30-45.

Michael, A. J. (2007). Textbook on Tort. (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Naemah Amin & Norazlina Abdul Aziz. (2015). The Liability of the Producer of False Halal Products under Product Liability Law. Asian Social Science, 11(15).

Norchaya Talib (2011). Law Of Torts in Malaysia (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell Asia

Peel, E., & Goudkamp, J. (2020). Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort. Thomson Reuters.

Rahmah Ismail. (2007). Perkembangan Undang-Undang Liabiliti Keluaran. Dalam Sakina Shaik Ahmad Yusoff et al. (eds.), Siri Perkembangan Undang-Undang di Malaysia: Undang-Undang Komersial dan Pengguna. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Steel, S. (2015). Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law’. The Modern Law Review, 78, 729.

Tieman, M. (2013). Establishing the principles in halal logistics. Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic Research, 1(1), 19-31.

Vos, G. (2001). Linking Chains of Causation: An Examination of New Approaches to Causation in Equity and the Common Law. The Cambridge Law Journal, 60(2), 337-352.

Woon Tan Kan & 7 Ors v Asian Rare Earth Sendirian Berhad [1992] 3 CLJ 786