Product Liability: Defectiveness and Producer Responsibility

Extract

[...] Furthermore, any exoneration effect is explicitly refused on the fact that the product was manufactured in accordance with the rules of the art or existing standards or that it has obtained administrative authorization. The producer is then responsible for the damage caused due to the defectiveness of the product, without being able to rely on the fault of the victim who is not in a position to realize the error made. The rejection of the victim's fault The producer invoked in this case, the fault of the victim. [...]

[...] The regime of liability for defective products is special in that it derogates from many aspects of common law civil liability, going so far as to exceed the distinction between contractual and extracontractual responsibilities. The conditions for implementation are not always easily appreciated. This is evidenced by the assessment of the defectiveness of a product, as it appears in the judgment of February 2015. In this case, Mr. who was temporarily occupying his father's house, was a victim of the explosion of a propane gas bottle used to supply a gas stove designed to operate with butane gas. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation did not retain the fault of the victim. In fact, this one could not legitimately be aware of the error made during the exchange of an empty bottle against a full one due to the 'absence of specific connectors that made it impossible to feed a propane gas bottle into a butane gas installation functioning'. In other words, if it is possible to claim partial or total exoneration in the event of the victim's fault, it is on the condition that the victim has received complete information on the use of the product as well as precise safety instructions. [...]

[...] The product is defective 'when it does not offer the safety that one can legitimately expect' (article 1245-3, Civil Code). Thus, a safety defect is required, and not a defect of conformity or a hidden vice in the sense of the sales law. The producer argues in this case, that the absence of the defective character of the product is assessed 'independently of its intrinsic danger'. The safety defect cannot thus be inferred from the product's danger alone. If a reference to the notion of danger is relevant, what needs to be established is an abnormal danger. [...]

[...] It considers that the bottle used by the victim is a defective product in the sense of Article 1386-4 of the Civil Code, on the grounds that 'the gas butane and propane cylinders are similar and can be fixed indifferently on any gas bottle'. It also estimates that the fault of Mr. X cannot be taken into account inasmuch as the said victim could not be aware of the error committed, as regards the gas provided, during the exchange of an empty bottle against a full one due to 'the absence of specific connectors that made it impossible to supply a gas butane installation with a propane gas bottle'. [...]