2021 Question 2 — LawShortcut Independent Model Answer
Defective hip joint · Product liability · Medical negligence
Scenario summary
In August 2011 the German manufacturer Hipster GmbH made a run of replacement hip joints fitted with a special lubricating mechanism and rolled them out across Europe. In Ireland, Medibits Ltd handled their distribution to the medical profession.
By August 2015, after a medical journal tied the lubrication mechanism to a series of blood-poisoning cases, Hipster recalled the product, and Medibits managed to retrieve most of the defective joints.
Mr Pink, who had early-onset arthritis, underwent a hip replacement in 2018. The consultant orthopaedic surgeon overseeing it, Mr Purple, promised him “state of the art” materials and “pain free living”. Purple fitted a Hipster joint that predated the recall and had remained in his possession. In 2019 Pink came down with the very same blood poisoning and now depends on permanent pain-relief medication.
Candidates are asked to advise Mr Pink on his causes of action in tort, the proper defendants, and any defences.
This is a LawShortcut scenario summary written in our own words. For the exact examined wording, use the official King’s Inns paper linked above.
What this model answer covers
Issues and structure addressed in the full LawShortcut model answer:
- 1. Hipster GmbH — Liability for Defective Products Act 1991
- 2. Medibits Ltd — distributor/supplier
- 3. Hipster GmbH — common-law product negligence
- 4. Mr Purple — professional / medical negligence
- 5. Limitation and defences — keep the two regimes separate
- 6. Damages and overall advice
- Concurrent Wrongdoers
- Current-Law Note for 2026
Read the complete LawShortcut model answer to this question — reading the question, issue spotting, the applicable law, application to the facts and conclusions — inside the King’s Inns Tort Model Answer Vault.
Part of the King’s Inns Tort Model Answer Vault — 30 independently authored model answers, 2020—2025.