Where there are two equally plausible but conflicting inferences as to the cause of a fire, and the evidence does not permit one to be preferred over the other, the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof on causation. Liability for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for purpose under s 19(a) of the Goods Act 1958 (Vic) is strict and does not require knowledge of the defect by the supplier, but the plaintiff must still prove causation to recover more than nominal damages. The question of whether a product with a latent risk of explosion is fit for purpose under s 19(a) was addressed in obiter but not finally determined due to the failure to prove a factual predicate regarding lamp type.
The full text is available to signed-in members.