Добавил:
neus500
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023 / product_liability_in_comparative_perspective.pdf
X
- •Contents
- •Figures
- •Foreword
- •Contributors
- •Preface
- •1 Introduction
- •Product liability and overlapping interests
- •The European Directive and harmonisation
- •Product liability: why compare?
- •Contents of the book
- •Introduction
- •The medicine
- •The English legal principles
- •Preparation of the case
- •German law
- •Consulting the retired draftsman of the directive
- •Research in other EC Member States and in the United States concerning relevant writings and judicial experience
- •Carrying out research at the Max Planck Institute
- •Collecting all language versions of the legislation and preparing translations of other material
- •The request for a reference in 1999
- •The non-issues
- •Product
- •Producer
- •Consumer Protection Act versus Directive
- •The core issues
- •Comparative law features of the oral argument
- •The judgment
- •Envoi
- •Postscript by Nicholas Underhill QC
- •3 Spanish product liability today – adapting to the ‘new’ rules
- •Introduction: the application of the Spanish Product Liability Act by the courts
- •Consumer Protection Act or Product Liability Act: which rules apply?
- •Strict liability versus fault liability. Which grounds for liability?
- •The legal concept of ‘product’: products or services?
- •The legal concept of ‘defect’. Manufacturing defects or useless products?
- •The legal concept of ‘manufacturer’: back door for the supplier?
- •Defences, in particular, the full development-risks defence for public bodies
- •Recoverable damage: how to compensate non-pecuniary loss and the problem of the ‘lower threshold’
- •Compensation for death and personal injury
- •The 500 ECU threshold
- •Conclusion
- •4 Interaction between the European Directive on Product Liability and the former liability regime in Italy
- •Introduction
- •Italian background to the European Directive
- •The implementation of the European Directive
- •The role of warnings and advertising
- •The expectation test and the distribution of liability between the parties
- •Manufacturer liability
- •Court’s pro-claimant attitude: joint and several liability
- •Recovery for emotional distress
- •The use of presumptions
- •Drawing a consumer model
- •The (dis)advantages of the European Directive in competition with other liability regimes
- •Limitations to the consumer’s right of claim
- •Product liability function betrayed
- •Access to justice in mass tort cases
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •Damages liability under French law
- •Law of contract
- •Obligation to guarantee against defects
- •Tort law
- •Article 1384 (1) of the French Civil Code
- •Implementation of the Directive
- •Commission v France
- •Parallel regimes and extent of harmonisation
- •Conclusion
- •6 German product liability law: between European Directives, American Restatements and common sense
- •Introduction
- •Product liability based on pre-market defects
- •Contract
- •Tort
- •1. Breach of a duty of care
- •2. Breach of statutory duty
- •Product Liability Act
- •1. Defect
- •3. Defences
- •4. Causation
- •Liability based on breach of post-marketing duties
- •Duty of care
- •Product safety laws
- •Liability for drugs
- •Background
- •Scope of the Drug Act
- •Defective drug
- •Causation
- •Compulsory insurance
- •State compensation schemes
- •Practice and procedure
- •Pre-trial discovery
- •Experts
- •Trial on preliminary issues
- •Fee arrangements and legal costs
- •Class or representative actions
- •7 Dutch case law on the EU Product Liability Directive
- •Introduction
- •Defect and development risk defence
- •Presentation of the product and expected use
- •Proof of the defect
- •Proof of causal relationship between defect and damage
- •Information about the identity of producer or importer
- •Putting a product into circulation
- •The position of the supplier
- •The DES-case: proof of causation
- •Conclusion
- •8 Defect in English law – lessons for the harmonisation of European product liability
- •Comparative law in the courtroom
- •Strict liability is different from negligence
- •General standard
- •Relevant factors
- •Non-standard products
- •Warnings
- •Implications
- •Application of defectiveness standard across Europe
- •Development risks
- •Development of European private law
- •9 Product liability: basic problems in a comparative law perspective
- •Negligence or strict liability?
- •Was this decision correct?
- •Is the limitation of the amount of damages an essential feature of strict liability?
- •Development risk liability
- •10 The development risks defence
- •Introduction
- •History
- •Implementation
- •The meaning of the defence
- •Decided cases
- •Early cases
- •The infringement proceedings
- •1. The legal meaning of the provisions
- •2. The arguments of the parties
- •3. The Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro
- •4. The judgment of the Court of Justice
- •5. Discussion
- •Cases after the Infringement Proceedings
- •Unresolved issues
- •State of knowledge
- •Accessibility
- •Knowledge
- •Wide or narrow interpretation
- •Conduct of the producer
- •Manufacturing defects
- •Discoverability in the individual product
- •Reform
- •Conclusion
- •11 Approaches to product liability in the EU and Member States
- •The essential components of product liability
- •Substantive law
- •Procedure
- •Damages
- •Jurisdictional issues
- •Does the Community have jurisdictional competence to propose a new Directive on product liability?
- •Conclusion
- •12 Product liability – a history of harmonisation
- •Introduction
- •How much harmonisation is necessary?
- •Modernisation
- •Defect and development risk
- •Conclusion
- •13 Harmonisation or divergence? A comparison of French and English product liability rules
- •Liability according to the legislative rules
- •The liability of the manufacturer
- •The liability of the supplier
- •French court decisions under the new regime
- •The contractual and extra-contractual actions
- •The English law
- •The French law
- •The future of liability rules in France following the incorporation of the Directive
- •Conclusion
- •14 Product liability law in Central Europe and the true impact of the Product Liability Directive
- •Introduction
- •Methodology and structure of the study
- •The political momentum for the implementation of the Directive – Central Europe striving to join the European Union
- •Implementation of the Directive
- •The internal momentum for change – Central Europeans striving for strict liability and beyond
- •The context of product liability laws in Europe – consumer policies, consumer position and consumer law – differences between the East and the West
- •Central Europe and consumers – particular sources of divergences
- •Central European legal systems and their effect upon the product liability regimes
- •Central European product liability regime – before the implementation of the Directive and the new regulation
- •Introductory remarks
- •Contractual liability
- •Tortious liability
- •Legal bases of tortious liability regimes
- •Products within the scope of application of product liability laws
- •The requisites of tortious product liability:
- •Introduction into circulation of a defective product
- •1. Introduction into circulation
- •2. Defective product
- •3. Fault – the attribute of the defendant’s conduct
- •4. Defences in a ‘fault’ liability system of Central European tort law and in the ‘strict’ liability system of the Directive
- •Damages
- •Causal link between the defendant’s act and the damage
- •1. Time limits for bringing action
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •Orientation of United States products regimes
- •Orientation of the European Union Directive and its clones
- •Pre-manufacture generic infection cases
- •Response of the Restatement Third
- •Response of the Directive and its clones: the Hepatitis C judgment
- •Other responses to pre-manufacture generic infection cases
- •Conclusion
- •Mitsubishi, mad cows and Minamata
- •Comparing product liability and safety in Japan
- •Americanisation, Europeanisation or globalisation?
- •THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
- •HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE
- •Article 1
- •Article 2
- •Article 3
- •Article 4
- •Article 5
- •Article 6
- •Article 7
- •Article 8
- •Article 9
- •Article 10
- •Article 11
- •Article 12
- •Article 13
- •Article 14
- •Article 15
- •Article 16
- •Article 17
- •Article 18
- •Article 19
- •Article 20
- •Article 21
- •Article 22
- •Index
22 |
MICHAEL BRO OKE AND IAN FOR RESTER |
Collecting all language versions of the legislation and preparing translations of other material
The parties were greatly helped by the fact that the judge having the conduct of the litigation, Mr Justice Burton, was known to speak French comfortably and, as it turned out, other European languages very adequately. It was not necessary to go to the expense of preparing translations of all the material in various foreign languages. This was particularly convenient as to French, the language of most of the travaux pr´eparatoires. However, translations of the entirety of two of the judgments of the BGH were prepared, as well as translations of the Arnhem district court judgment and Swedish travaux pr´eparatoires which accompanied the promulgation in Swedish law of the Directive. The full texts of the academic commentators relied upon were made available and translations prepared of sentences or paragraphs which seemed particularly relevant. (All counsel spoke French, and some spoke moderate German and Italian.)
The request for a reference in 1999
In October 1999, the claimants invited the judge to make a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice on a number of questions as to the true and proper construction to be placed on the Directive. This application was rejected. His order indicated that he felt the request was premature in that it was not yet certain what questions would turn out to be the relevant ones. A year later the trial started before the same judge. By then the scene had been set for a very full comparative analysis of how the Directive should be construed and applied to the facts relating to the claimants’ infection through blood transfusions with the hepatitis C virus.
The non-issues
Three points of general importance hovered in the wings of the trial but did not in the end arise for decision. They are worth mentioning in passing and may crop up in future cases.
Product
On the generic pleadings the claimants’ allegation that blood and blood products were ‘products’ within the meaning of the CPA was not admitted by the defendant. The defendant’s position on the pleadings had support
Соседние файлы в папке Экзамен зачет учебный год 2023