(C) Consumer safety, civil liability and the European Court’s decisions of 2002

Implementation of the 1985 Directive and reform of the law of consumer safety in the same Act raised squarely the question of the relationship of the regulation of safety and civil liability. Previous legislation had given the administration a power to make regulations for the safety of particular products and had provided that breach of any duty contained in these regulations would in principle give rise to civil liability.³⁷⁰ On consultation before the 1987 Act, the government asked whether breach of the new general safety requirement should give rise to civil liability, given that it might be thought ‘onerous and confusing and contrary to the spirit of the Directive, for producers to be subject to two concurrent provisions on strict liability…as well as the strict liability…under the law of contract’.³⁷¹ For while there is a good deal of similarity between the definition of safety for the purposes of Parts I and II of the Act, they are not the same and there are further and more significant differences in the range of products covered, the primary defendants (producers under Part I, suppliers under Part II³⁷²) and defences.³⁷³ In the upshot, the government decided expressly to provide that breach of the general safety requirement should not give rise to civil liability, whereas breach of any obligations imposed by specific safety regulations should still do so.³⁷⁴

Uncontroversial at the time, this position may now seem open to censure given the European Court’s decisions of 2002 on the completely harmonising nature of the scheme required by the Directive.³⁷⁵ For the practical effect of the recognition of a power to create regulatory duties for particular products to be exercised after the Directive is to hold their supplier liable for failures in a product’s safety in circumstances not provided by the Directive. As the European Court’s decision in Gonzàlez Sanchez suggests, where this is the case, in principle even laws prior to notification of the Directive in 1985 must be corrected.³⁷⁶

However, there are two arguments which could allow the UK to retain its link between breach of safety regulations and civil liability. The first argument is that the (p.475) link comes within the second part of article 13 of the Directive, which allows the perpetuation of existing systems of liability applicable to particular categories of products.³⁷⁷ Certainly, the liabilities arising from breach of any individual regulation would concern only a particular category of product and while the regulation itself may not pre-date the Directive, the legal link between particular safety regulations and civil liability was established in English law in 1961.³⁷⁸ The second argument is broader. While English law distinguishes the questions of civil liability and breach of statutory duties (whether or not they are backed with criminal sanctions),³⁷⁹ some other Member States instead treat breach of any particular legislative or regulatory duty, or criminal offence as itself a civil fault of a kind capable of giving rise to liability under their general laws of delict. This position is well illustrated by French law,³⁸⁰ and so a French lawyer can understandably consider that the European Courts decisions in 2002 expressly preserve the possibility for a Member State to impose liability on this ground despite the ‘completely harmonious’ nature of the Directive’s scheme.³⁸¹ This being the case, it would be substantively pointless in terms of harmonisation for the European Court to rule that the imposition of civil liability for breach of statutory regulations governing particular products in English law fell foul of the Directive’s nature simply because English law does not treat this liability as part of its ‘general law’, but deals with it expressly and particularly by statute. On the other hand, this practical argument may not convince the Court, whose concern in the 2002 decisions to protect the integrity of the Directive’s regime appears more formal than substantive; and if it were not to, this would give a new and irrational significance to the treatment of the relationship between regulatory duties and civil liability in the laws of the Member States.

Notes:

(¹) American Law Institute (1977). For the English case law, see above, p. 180.

(²) Case C-300/95 [1997] ECR 1–2649 para. 16.

(³) Stapleton, Product Liability , 42–6.

(⁴) Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (1978) Cmnd. 7054. See also English Law Commission Report No. 82, Scots Law Commission Report No. 45, Liability for Defective Products (1977), Cmnd. 6831 .

(⁵) Cmnd. 7054, Chap. 22.

(⁶) Stapleton, Product Liability , 45.

(⁷) Explanatory Report on the European Convention on products liability in regard to personal injury and death E.T.S. No. 91 (‘Explanatory Report’), para. 1.

(⁸) European Convention on products liability in regard to personal injury and death of 27 January 1977, E.T.S. No. 91 (the ‘Convention’). For further comparisons between the Convention and the 1985 Directive, see Markovits, 53 et seq.

(⁹) Art. 3(1). No liability was imposed in respect of other types of harm.

(¹⁰) Art. 2(b) definition of ‘producer’.

(¹¹) Convention, art. 13.

(¹²) It nevertheless contained an Annex containing three possible derogations from its provisions available to signatory States: relating to the defence of contributory negligence, an overall financial limit on the liabil ity of any individual producer and the exclusion of a retailer’s liability in respect of primary agricultural products.

(¹³) Explanatory Report, para. 3 .

(¹⁴) Austria, Belgium, France and Luxembourg.

(¹⁵) OJ No. C 92 of 25 Apr. 1975.

(¹⁶) Proposal to Council for Directive of 9 Sept. 1976, OJ No. C 241 of 14 Oct. 1976, p. 9.

(¹⁷) Convention, art. 3; 1985 Directive, arts. 1, 9(a).

(¹⁸) Convention, art. 2(a), art. 3(2); 1985 Directive, art. 3(1) and (2) (with variations).

(¹⁹) Convention, art. 3(3); 1985 Directive, art. 3(3).

(²⁰) Convention, art. 2(a); 1985 Directive, art. 2.

(²¹) Convention, art. 2(a); 1985 Directive, arts. 2, 15(a). The Directive was amended in 1999, as noted below, p. 446.

(²²) Convention, art. 4; 1985 Directive, art. 8(2).

(²³) Convention, arts. 3(5) and 5(2); 1985 Directive, arts. 5 and 8(1).

(²⁴) Convention, art. 8; 1985 Directive, art. 12.

(²⁵) Convention, art. 6; 1985 Directive, art. 10.

(²⁶) Convention, art. 7; 1985 Directive, art. 11.

(²⁷) Convention, art. 3(1); 1985 Directive, art. 9.

(²⁸) Convention, art. 3; 1985 Directive, art. 1.

(²⁹) Explanatory Report, paras. 10–11 .

(³⁰) Ibid., para. 12 .

(³¹) Art. 2(c); Explanatory Report, paras. 12–15 .

(³²) Explanatory Report, para. 17 .

(³³) ‘la sécurité à laquelle on peut légitimement s‘attendre’ .

(³⁴) Explanatory Report, para. 35 .

(³⁵) Art. 6.

(³⁶) Art. 2(c).

(³⁷) Explanatory Report, para. 36 .

(³⁸) Ibid., paras. 37–41 .

(³⁹) Art. 6.

(⁴⁰) Art. 7(e).

(⁴¹) Art. 7(d).

(⁴²) Art. 7(f).

(⁴³) See generally, Weatherill, EC Consumer Law and Policy, Chap. 1 on the evolution of the EC Treaty provisions on consumer protection .

(⁴⁴) Below, pp. 440–4.

(⁴⁵) Since the Single European Act of 1987, art. 100 (now art. 94) has been supplemented by art. 100A (now art. 95) which provides for qualified majority voting, on which see Weatherill, op. cit. n. 43, 6–9.

(⁴⁶) Recital 18. Whittaker (1985) 236–37 ; Markovits, 98–9 ; Taylor, Harmonisation communautaire, 17–22 .

(⁴⁷) Arts. 2 and 15(a).

(⁴⁸) Art. 7(e) and 15(b).

(⁴⁹) Art. 16. Neither the UK nor France have taken advantage of this option in their implementing legislation.

(⁵⁰) Art. 8(2), below, pp. 510–11.

(⁵¹) Art. 10(2).

(⁵²) Arts. 5 and 8(1).

(⁵³) Art. 9 in fine.

(⁵⁴) Art. 4.

(⁵⁵) Art. 4, 7.

(⁵⁶) Below, Chap. 17, esp. pp. 492–4, 503–7.

(⁵⁷) Convention, Art. 10.

(⁵⁸) Ibid., art. 12.

(⁵⁹) Ibid., art. 11.

(⁶⁰) Recital 13.

(⁶¹) Ghestin (1986), 136, referring to a Commission working document to this effect. Ghestin was a member of the scientific advisory committee advising the Council of Ministers in respect of the 1985 Directive. The Council Resolution of 19 Dec. 2002 on amendment of the liability for defective products Directive (2003/C 26/02) OJ C 26/2 4 Feb. 2003 para. 4 quotes its own joint statement of 1985 which specifically referred to the possibility for Member States of laying down rules other than those found in article 3 of the 1985 Directive for the liability of intermediaries.

(⁶²) Below, pp. 440–4.

(⁶³) Recital 5, 6 and 7 (on the latter see below, p. 522).

(⁶⁴) On what is meant by this, see below, pp. 502–3.

(⁶⁵) Recital 12 and 13.

(⁶⁶) Recital 2.

(⁶⁷) Recital 7; art. 7.

(⁶⁸) See recital 3 (the exclusion of liability for agricultural products and game, removed by amendment of the Directive by Dir. 99/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 (which removes the option contained in the 1985 Directive, art. 15(1)(a)); 1985 Directive, recital 11 (the ten-year foreclosure period) and Recital 17 (the optional financial ceiling).

(⁶⁹) Recital 10.

(⁷⁰) Recital 13.

(⁷¹) See, for example, 414 HL Deb. col. 1407 (Lord Scarman), col. 1418 (Lord Berwick); House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, 50th Report Session 1979–80, para. 10; Whittaker (1985) 234–5 ; J. Stapleton, ‘Three Problems with the New Product Liability’ in P. Cane and J. Stapleton (eds.), Essays for Patrick Atiyah (Oxford, 1991) 253, 276 et seq.; Stapleton, Product Liability, 53–60 .

(⁷²) Below, pp. 440–4.

(⁷³) Case C-52/00 of 25 Apr. 2002, Commission v France [2002] I-3827 (‘Case C-52/00’); Case C-154/00 of 25 Apr. 2002, Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-3879 (‘Case C-154/00’); Case C-183/00 of 25 Apr. 2002, Gonzàlez Sanchez v Medicina Asturiana SA [2002] ECR I-3901 (‘Case C-154/00’ or ‘Gonzàlez Sanchez). For earlier academic discussion of these issues see Whittaker (1985), 238 ; Stapleton, ‘Three Problems’ , op. cit. n. 71, 278 et seq.; Stapleton, Product Liability, 60–4 .

(⁷⁴) Case C-52/00.

(⁷⁵) Case C-154/00.

(⁷⁶) Case C-183/00.

(⁷⁷) Law No. 26 of 19 July 1984 for the Protection of Consumers and Users.

(⁷⁸) Law No. 22 of 6 July 1994, art. 1

(⁷⁹) Case C-183/00, para. 13.

(⁸⁰) Joined opinion of 18 Sept. 2001, Case C-52/00 and C-183/00 [2002] ECR I-03827.

(⁸¹) Case C-52/00, para. 24; Case C-154/00, para. 20 (emphasis added); cf. Case C-183/00 paras. 23–32.

(⁸²) Noted below, pp. 458–60 in relation to the French implementing legislation.

(⁸³) Above, p. 438.

(⁸⁴) I.e. arts. 94 and 95 EC.

(⁸⁵) Case C-52/00 paras. 15–16; Case C-183/00 paras. 24–5; Case C-154/00 paras 11–12.

(⁸⁶) Dir. 93/13/EC of 5 April 1993 art. 8.

(⁸⁷) Case C-154/00 para. 16.

(⁸⁸) Case C-154/00 para. 15.

(⁸⁹) Quoted above, p. 437.

(⁹⁰) Case C-154/00 para. 18; Case 52/00, para. 22; Case 183/00, para. 31.

(⁹¹) Ibid. This is particularly clear in the opinion of A.-G. Geelhoed , op. cit. n. 80, paras. 53–54.

(⁹²) Case C-183/00, para. 14.

(⁹³) Law No. 26 of 19 July 1984 for the Protection of Consumers and Users, art. 28.

(⁹⁴) Case C-183–00, para. 34 (emphases added).

(⁹⁵) Cf. below, p. 474.

(⁹⁶) Above, pp. 440–1.

(⁹⁷) Cf. Stapleton, Three Problems, 279 who foresaw the potential problems of the 1985 Directive in this respect.

(⁹⁸) Below, pp. 444–50.

(⁹⁹) Art. 3(3); Case 52/00, paras. 36–40. For the loi of 1998, see below, pp. 458–9.

(¹⁰⁰) This is made even more clear by the French version of the decision which refers to the ‘garantie des vices cachés’ .

(¹⁰¹) Below, pp. 461–5.

(¹⁰²) Below, pp. 464, 507, 575–6, 662–3.

(¹⁰³) Below, pp. 465–74.

(¹⁰⁴) Above, pp. 28–9, 95–8, 158–9, 264–6.

(¹⁰⁵) Below, Chap. 19.

(¹⁰⁶) In this discussion, the following will be referred to: C.J.S. Hodges, Report for the Commission of the European Communities on the Application of Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products (May, 1994) (‘Hodges, Report’ ); EC Commission, First Report on the Application of the Council Directive on the Approximation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States concerning Liability for Defective Products (85/374/EEC) Com (95)617 final (13 Dec. 1995) (‘EC Commission, First Report’); D. Roth-Behrendt, EU Parliament, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, Report on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC [etc.] PE 225.962fin. (28 Sep. 1998) (‘Roth-Behrendt, Report’); Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC [etc.] (98/C 95/17) (30 Mar. 1998) (‘Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee’); EU Parliamentary Decision of 23 Mar. 1999 on the common position EC No. 3/1999, OJ C 177 of 22 Jun. 1999 (‘EU Parliamentary Decision 1999’); Dir. 99/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999 (‘Amending Directive’); EC Commission, Green Paper, Liability for Defective Products Com (1999)396 final (28 Jul. 1999) (‘EC Commission, Green Paper); College of Europe College of Europe, Analysis of the Replies to the Commission Green Paper on Product Liability (13 Sept. 2000) 〉http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/goods/prodliability.htm〈 (‘Analysis of Replies’); D.N. MacCormick, Report on the Commission Green Paper Liability for defective products’ PE 232.108 (1 Mar. 2000) (‘MacCormick, Report’); D. Roth-Bethrendt, Opinion for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market PE 232.108 (‘Roth-Behrendt, Opinion); European Parliament Resolution on the Commission Green Paper ‘Liability for Defective Products’ PE 289.426 (30 Mar. 2000) (‘EU Parliament Resolution 2000’); Report fom the Commission on the Application of Directive 85/374 [etc.] Com/2000/0893 final (2001) (‘EC Commission, Second Report); Council Resolution of 19 Dec. 2002 on amendment of the Directive concerning liability for defective products (2003/C 26/02) OJ C 26/2 4 Feb. 2003 (‘Council Resolution 2002’); Lovells, Product Liability in the European Union: a Report for the European Commission (Feb. 2003) (web ref. as before) (‘Lovells, Report’) ; Fondazione Roselli, Analysis of the Economic Impact of the Development Risk Clause as provided by Directive 85/374/EEC on Liability for Defective Products April 2004 (‘Roselli, Report’).

(¹⁰⁷) Above, pp. 5–14. Following its nature as a study into the economic effect of the development risk defence, the most recent report (the Roselli, Report of 2004) has looked at other mechanisms of compensa tion of personal injury or death (such as social security) and their potential impact on claims against producers and suppliers.

(¹⁰⁸) Below, pp. 514, 529.

(¹⁰⁹) EC Commission, First Report reflecting Hodges, Report .

(¹¹⁰) 1985 Directive, art. 16(2) and see above, p. 436.

(¹¹¹) EC Commission, First Report ; Hodges, Report, paras. 52 and 198 .

(¹¹²) EU Parliament, Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE, Report on alleged contraventions or mal administration in the implementation of Community law in relation to BSE, without prejudice to the jurisdic tion of the Community or national courts, M. Medina Ortega (rapporteur) A4-0020/97 (7 Feb. 1997) .

(¹¹³) Ibid., Part AII 6(3)(b) .

(¹¹⁴) OJ C 337 7 Nov. 1997 p. 54.

(¹¹⁵) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, paras. 3.2.2, 3.4; Roth-Behrendt, Report, para. 3 (which includes the opinions of other Parliamentary committees).

(¹¹⁶) Roth-Behrendt, Report , Legislative Proposal and Explanatory Statement.

(¹¹⁷) Ibid., paras. 4.2, 4.3 .

(¹¹⁸) Ibid., para. 4.4 .

(¹¹⁹) Ibid., para. 4.5 .

(¹²⁰) Ibid., para. 4.1 ; amendment 3. The description is that of the Committee of Legal Affairs and Citizens’ Rights: Roth-Behrendt, Report, 26 .

(¹²¹) EU Parliamentary Decision 1999.

(¹²²) Amending Directive, recital 1.

(¹²³) ,Ibid. recital 7.

(¹²⁴) EC Commission, Green Paper; Analysis of Responses ; EC Commission, Second Report ; Lovells, Report .

(¹²⁵) EC Commission, Green Paper, para. 3 .

(¹²⁶) EC Commission, Green Paper, para. 3.1 .

(¹²⁷) Analysis of Replies, 11–12 .

(¹²⁸) EC Commission, Second Report, para. 2.1.1 .

(¹²⁹) Lovells, Report, 46–7 .

(¹³⁰) Roselli, Report, 5, 135 (in the context of review of the working of the development risks defence).

(¹³¹) EU Parliament Resolution 2000, paras. 2–3; EC Commission, Second Report, para. 4 .

(¹³²) See Lovells, Report, 49–50; Appendix 3, ‘Article 7’.

(¹³³) EC Commission, Second Report, para. 3.2.2 .

(¹³⁴) EC Commission, Second Report, para. 3.2.2 .

(¹³⁵) Roselli, Report, 3–4.

(¹³⁶) Lovells, Report, 53 .

(¹³⁷) Above, pp. 440–4.

(¹³⁸) Above, pp. 438–9.

(¹³⁹) Analysis of Responses, 10 .

(¹⁴⁰) There can be other costs in terms of time spent on processing claims, loss to reputation, and putting into effect measures intended to avoid liability (e.g. the keeping of records by a mere supplier so as to pass on liability under the 1985 Directive, art. 3(3)).

(¹⁴¹) Lovells, Report, 29–30 .

(¹⁴²) Ibid., 28 noting that ‘a few producers indicated that their businesses are affected in some ways by such disparities’.

(¹⁴³) Ibid., 9 et seq.

(¹⁴⁴) E.g. the application of the requirement that a supplier should inform a claimant of the identity of the producer within a ‘reasonable time’. Whereas some Member States (e.g. the UK) had simply used these terms, others had set specific periods, varying from 1 to 3 months (Germany and Italy respectively): EC Commission, Green Paper, 29 .

(¹⁴⁵) Lovells, Report, 10 et seq .

(¹⁴⁶) Cf. 1985 Directive, recital 17 and above, pp. 440–1.

(¹⁴⁷) Lovells, Report, 45 .

(¹⁴⁸) EC Commission, Green Paper, 15–16 ; Roselli, Report, 88 et seq. which acknowledges the important impact of differences in social security provision or special compensation funds and their relationship with damages (including on the basis of product liability implementing the 1985 Directive) in the practical impact of the development risk defence (though this impact is of more general significance).

(¹⁴⁹) Ibid., 31–3.

(¹⁵⁰) Roth-Behrendt, Report, para. 4.1 , above, p. 446. The committee took the same view on the issues’ return as part of the consultation process on the EC Commission, Green Paper : Roth-Behrendt, Opinion, 2 , though the Parliament’s Economic and Social Committee took the opposite view: OJ C 117 of 26 Apr. 2000, para. 3.4.

(¹⁵¹) EC Commission, Green Paper, 20–2. It also noted the special problem for a claimant in some cases in determining the identity of the producer where an identical product is made by several producers, but it is not clear which one produced the product or products in question: should the Directive impose a ‘market share liability’? Ibid., 22 . All responses were in the negative: Analysis of Replies, 14–15 . Cf. below, pp. 513–14.

(¹⁵²) Analysis of Replies, 12–13 .

(¹⁵³) Ibid., 13 and see Lovells, Report, 47 .

(¹⁵⁴) EU Commission, Second Report , para. 3.2.1.

(¹⁵⁵) Ibid .

(¹⁵⁶) See above, pp. 46–50, 205–18.

(¹⁵⁷) EU Commission, Second Report , para. 3.2.10.

(¹⁵⁸) Loi no. 98–389 of 19 May 1998 relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (‘Loi of 1998’).

(¹⁵⁹) R. Forni, Rapport an nom de la commission des Lois constitutionelles [etc.], AN No. 755 (4 Mar. 1998) (‘Forni, Rapport), 5 .

(¹⁶⁰) Sén., Séance of 5 Feb. 1998 (available from 〉http://www.senat.fr/〈). The president of the Sénat at the time was M. Laurent Fabius, formerly Prime Minister and himself charged with criminal offences in relation to the affaire du sang contaminé: above, pp. 398–400.

(¹⁶¹) Below, pp. 455–7.

(¹⁶²) Below, pp. 457–65. Loi de simplification du droit no. 2004–1343 of 9 Dec. 2004, art. 29 (‘loi of 9 Dec. 2004). This change had been foreseen by the Sénat, Projet de loi No. 358 relatif à la garantie de la conformité du bien au contrat due par le vendeur au consommateur et à la responsabilité du fait des produits deé- fectueux (Session ordinaire de 2003–2004))(16 Jun. 2004) (‘projet de loi 2004’) available at 〉http://www.senat.fr〈. And see Case C-52/00 of 25 Apr. 2002, Commission v France [2002] I-3827, above, p. 440.

(¹⁶³) Above, pp. 243, 264–6.

(¹⁶⁴) Above, pp. 69–79, 95–8.

(¹⁶⁵) Loi no. 83–660 of 27 Jul. 1983, now contained in Art L. 221–1 C. consom.

(¹⁶⁶) Above, pp. 308–10.

(¹⁶⁷) Above, pp. 59–61.

(¹⁶⁸) Ibid.

(¹⁶⁹) J. Ghestin, ‘La directive communautaire et son introduction en droit français’ in Ghestin, Sécurité des consommateurs, 111 .

(¹⁷⁰) C. Jamin, RTDCiv. 763, 764 ; N. Molfessis, ‘Les produits en cause’ in ‘La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (loi du 19 mai 1998)’ Petites affiches, La Loi No. 155 (28 Dec. 1998) 20 (referring to the ‘Anglo-American practice of definition in relation to ‘product’).

(¹⁷¹) C. Larroumet, ‘La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux après la loi du 19 mai 1998’ D 1998.311, 312.

(¹⁷²) See Ghestin (1988) .

(¹⁷³) The French Constitution of 1958 divides the domains of these two types of law making according to their subject matter, rather than on the basis (as in the UK) that Parliament must give authority for secondary ministerial law making: Constitution of 1958, arts. 34 and 37 and J. Bell, French Constitutional Law (Oxford, 1992) Chap. 3. In this respect, article 34 of the Constitution places laws which fix the ‘fundamental principles of civil and commercial obligations’ within the domaine législatif. On the other hand, art. 38 of the Constitution of 1958 empowers the government to ask Parliament to authorise it to take measures which are normally within the domain of la loi for a limited period. An example of this may be found in loi no. 2004–237 of 18 Mar. 2004 which authorised the government, inter alia, to take those measures necessary to implement the General Product Safety Directive of 2001, this leading to ord. no. 2004–670 of 9 Jul. 2004, JO Rép. fr. of 10 Jul. 2004, 12520. A further example may be found in the ord. of 17 Feb. 2005 which was authorised by the loi of 9 Dec. 2004, art. 82 and which implemented the Consumer Guarantees Directive: see below, p. 583.

(¹⁷⁴) The government bill (Projet de loi of 1990) was introduced into the Assemblée nationale on 23 May 1990: Projet de loi AN no. 1395 (23 May 1990) (‘Projet de loi 1990’). The Commission mixte paritaire agreed a text on 15 December 1992, but this was not submitted by the government for the approval of the two assemblies: G. Bordes, Proposition de loi relative à la responsabilité des produits défectueux; note avant deuxième lecture, Sén. (31 Mar. 1998) (‘Bordes, note’); 1.

(¹⁷⁵) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 379 .

(¹⁷⁶) Projet de loi of 1990, art. 3 .

(¹⁷⁷) Ibid., art. 5 .

(¹⁷⁸) Ghestin(1988) and see M. Charmant, Rapport au nom de la Commission des Lois constitutionelles, de la législation et de l’administration générale de la République AN No. 2136 (20 Jun. 1991), 10–11 .

(¹⁷⁹) Above, pp. 69–71.

(¹⁸⁰) Cf. the use of particular provisions of the Civil Code to support the construction of the doctrine of obligations d’information, above, p. 65, or the recognition of the exception d’inexécution: J. Ghestin, ‘L’exception d’inexécution’ in Fontaine and Viney, 4 .

(¹⁸¹) Loi of 5 July 1985, above, pp. 60–1. H. Groutel, ‘Le fondement de la réparation instituée par la loi du 5 juillet 1985’ JCP 1986. I.3244

(¹⁸²) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 790 .

(¹⁸³) Above, pp. 144–6.

(¹⁸⁴) Above, pp. 89–90.

(¹⁸⁵) Above, pp. 146–7.

(¹⁸⁶) Haute Cour de justice (Commission d’instruction) 5 Feb. 1993, D 1993.261 note Pradel, above, p. 398. The main proceedings in the administrative courts took place between December 1991 and the decision of the Conseil d’Etat on 9 April 1993, above, pp. 315–19. The criminal proceedings against the officers of the National Blood Transfusion Service were tried by Trib. Corr. Paris 23 Oct. 1992 and came before the Cour de cassation on 22 Jun. 1994, above, pp. 395–8.

(¹⁸⁷) C. Larroumet, ‘La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux après la loi du 19 mai 1998’ D 1998 Chron. 311 (‘Larroumet, D 1998 Chron. 311’), 315 (referring to the special treatment of corps humains in the loi of 1998).

(¹⁸⁸) Case C-293/91 Commission v France, of 13 Jan. 1993 [1993] ECR I-00001.

(¹⁸⁹) Jourdain, note, D 1995.351, 352 considered that French courts had a Community obligation to inter pret its law so as to conform to EC law under the jurisprudence associated with Case 106/89 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA. [1990] ECR I-04135. This was apparently accepted by the Cour de cassation in Civ. (1) 9 Jul. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 304 where it refused, however, to allow a defendant to take advantage of the development risk defence as this was optional on the terms of the Directive itself.

(¹⁹⁰) Above, p. 72.

(¹⁹¹) Above, p. 28.

(¹⁹²) Civ. (1) 11 Jun. 1991, Soc. Zeebrugge Caravans, Bull. civ. I no. 201, RTDCiv. 1992 114 obs. Jourdain; Con., Conc., Cons., Nov. 1991, n. 11, 6 note Leveneur. See similarly Civ. (1) 20 Mar. 1989, D 1989.381 note Malaurie (exploding television); Civ. (1) 22 Jan. 1991, Bull. civ. I no. 30, RTDCiv. 1991.439 obs. Jourdain (problematic beauty cream).

(¹⁹³) Jourdain, RTDCiv. 1992. 114, 115 .

(¹⁹⁴) Malaurie, note D 1989.381; Jourdain, obs. RTDCiv. 1991. 559, 540 and cf. above, p. 28.

(¹⁹⁵) Civ. (1) 17 Jan. 1995, D 1995.350 note P. Jourdain.

(¹⁹⁶) Cf. above, pp. 95–6.

(¹⁹⁷) The Cour de cassation held that the school was bound contractually for ‘the deed of the things which it makes use of in performing its contractual obligations’, on which see above, p. 24.

(¹⁹⁸) E.g. Civ (3) 5 Dec. 1972, D 1973.401 note J. Mazeaud, above, p. 51.

(¹⁹⁹) Cf. Civ. (1) 9 Jul. 2003, Bull. civ. I no. 173 where the court refused to allow liability under art. 1147 ‘as interpreted in the light of the Directive’ to compensate loss caused by the mere defectiveness of the product (a double-glazed window) which had caused no damage to any other property.

(²⁰⁰) Jourdain, note, D 1995.350, 353.

(²⁰¹) Civ. (1) 3 Mar. 1998, Bull. civ. I, no. 95, JCP 1998.II.10049 note P. Sargos and see above, Chap. 6. See also Civ. (1) 28 Apr. 1998, Bull. civ. I no. 158.

(²⁰²) Civ. (1) 28 Apr. 1998, Bull. civ. I no. 158 (expressly referring to the 1985 Directive). See similarly Civ. (1) 9 Jul. 1996, Bull. civ. I no. 304 (transfusional blood contaminated with HIV); Civ. (1) 23 Sept. 2003, Bull. civ. I, no. 188 (claim for multiple sclerosis after injection with anti-hepatitis B vaccine rejected for lack of proven defect or causation).

(²⁰³) Below, pp. 457–61.

(²⁰⁴) E.g. Civ. (1) 23 Sept. 2003, cit.

(²⁰⁵) Cf. the Cour de cassation’s taking over the task of assessing the fairness of terms in consumer contracts while the executive failed to exercise its regulatory power to outlaw categories of term: Civ. (1) 14 May 1991, JCP 1991.11.21763 note G Paisant, D 1991.449 note Ghestin.

(²⁰⁶) Above, pp. 440–4.

(²⁰⁷) Below, pp. 461–5.

(²⁰⁸) Above, pp. 145–6.

(²⁰⁹) Loi de simplification du droit no. 2004–1343 of 9 Dec. 2004 (‘loi of 9 Dec. 2004’), art. 29.

(²¹⁰) Proposition de loi submitted by Mme Nicole Catala, No. 469 (13 Jul. 1993) (‘Proposition Catala’). In the following, I shall refer to the following French parliamentary documents which all concern the bill on liability for defective products without giving their long titles: Proposition de loi, AN No. 469 (‘Proposition No. 469’); P. Fauchon, Rapport au nom de la commission des lois constitutionnelles [etc.], Sén. no. 226 (21 Jan. 1998) (‘Fauchon, Rapport’ ); Forni, Rapport, op. cit. n. 159 ; Proposition de loi, Sén. No. 360 (26 Mar. 1998); G. Bordes, Proposition de loi relative à la responsabilité des produits défectueux; note avant deuxième lecture, Sén. (31 Mar. 1998) (‘Bordes, note’) .

(²¹¹) See the debates in the Sénat; Séance of 5 Feb. 1998 and Séance of 21 Apr. 1998 (available from 〉http://www.senat.fr/〈).

(²¹²) Forni, Rapport, 17 .

(²¹³) Fauchon, Rapport, 17–20 .

(²¹⁴) Loi of 1998, art. 13, new art. 1386–12 C. civ. In the following, references will be to the new articles of the Civil Code rather than to the loi itself.

(²¹⁵) Forni, Rapport, 10–11 .

(²¹⁶) Fauchon, Rapport, 21–2 .

(²¹⁷) Art. 1386–3 C. civ.; above, p. 446.

(²¹⁸) Fauchon, Rapport, 23 .

(²¹⁹) Above, pp. 84–5.

(²²⁰) Art. 1386–8 C. civ. (as enacted).

(²²¹) Below, pp. 481, 517–21.

(²²²) 1985 Directive, art. 11.

(²²³) Art. 1386–5 C. civ. al. 1 ‘lorsque le producteur s’en est dessaisi volontairement’.

(²²⁴) Art. 1386–2 C. civ; Forni, Rapport, 14 ; Ghestin(1998), 1203 .

(²²⁵) Ghestin(1998), 1203 . For la gardesee above, pp. 52–4.

(²²⁶) Case C-52/00, paras. 36–47.

(²²⁷) Loi of 9 Dec. 2004, art. 29, new art. 1386–7 C. civ. which sought to achieve this result by providing that suppliers are liable on the same terms as producers ‘only if the producer remains unknown’.

(²²⁸) Art. 1386–12 al. 2 C. civ. (as enacted).

(²²⁹) Fauchon, Rapport, No. 226, 38–40 .

(²³⁰) Testu and Moitry, 12 .

(²³¹) EC 92/59/EEC of 29 Jun. 1992 on general product safety.

(²³²) Case C-52/00 Commission v France, of 25 Apr. 2002, para. 47 (text drawn from comparison of French version of judgment with confusing English version). The condition in art. 1386–12 al. 2 was removed by the loi of 9 Dec. 2004, art. 29.

(²³³) This phrase is actually used by the French version of recital 5 of the Directive, but to describe the recovery in full from any person liable in solidum.

(²³⁴) Art. 1386–1 C. civ. (as enacted).

(²³⁵) Art. 1386–2 C. civ. (as enacted).

(²³⁶) Above, p. 95.

(²³⁷) Art. 1386–15 al. 2. C. civ.

(²³⁸) Case C-52/00 of 25 Apr. 2002, para. 1.

(²³⁹) Ibid., para. 26.

(²⁴⁰) Ibid., para. 26–34.

(²⁴¹) Art. 29, amending art. 1386–2 al. 2 C. civ.

(²⁴²) Above, pp. 104–7.

(²⁴³) Art. 1386–7 C.civ.

(²⁴⁴) Above, pp. 104–5.

(²⁴⁵) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 389 n. 1016 .

(²⁴⁶) Below, pp. 531–8.

(²⁴⁷) Above, pp. 453–4.

(²⁴⁸) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 790 ; C. Jamin, RTDCiv. 1998.763, 764 .

(²⁴⁹) Malaurie, Aynès and Stoffel-Munck, Obligations, 157 .

(²⁵⁰) C. Larroumet, ‘Introduction’ in ‘La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (loi du 19 mai 1998)’ Petites affiches, La Loi No. 155 (28 Dec. 1998), 3 at 7 .

(²⁵¹) Huet, Principaux contrats spéciaux, 381 .

(²⁵²) Terré, Simler, Lequette, Obligations, 938.

(²⁵³) Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 805 ; D. Mazeaud, ‘Les victimes et les dommages réparables’ in La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (loi du 19 mai 1998) Petites affiches, La Loi No. 155 (28 Dec. 1998) (‘Mazeaud, Les victimes ), 14 at 18. S. Taylor, ‘The Harmonisation of European Product Liability Rules: French and English Law’ (1999) 48 ICLQ 419 , who saw the then existing jurisprudence of obligation de sécurité and treatment of putting a defective product onto the market as delictual fault (together with the continued presence of the garantie légale) as marking the significant difference with English law after implementation of the Directive. The same author notes, however, in Taylor, Harmonisation communautaire, 41 that this case law ‘ought logically to be absorbed by the new legislative scheme’.

(²⁵⁴) Larroumet, D 1998 Chron. 311, 316 .

(²⁵⁵) Ibid.

(²⁵⁶) Mazeaud, Les victimes, 19 (the jurisprudence he has in mind is the obligation de sécurité of the 1990s).

(²⁵⁷) J. Calais-Auloy, ‘Menace européenne sur la jurisprudence française concernant l’obligation de sécurité du vendeur professionnel (CJCE, 25 avril 2002)’ D 2002 Chron. 2458, 2460. Above, pp. 441–2.

(²⁵⁸) For these doctrines, see above, pp. 455–7.

(²⁵⁹) Ghestin(1998), 1206 ; L. Leveneur, ‘Le défaut’ in La responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (loi du 19 mai 1998) Petites affiches, La Loi No. 155 (28 Dec. 1998), 22, 33–4; Mazeaud, Les victimes, 19.

(²⁶⁰) Calais-Auloy, D 2002 Chron. 2458, 2459; Flour, Aubert and Savaux, Fait juridique, 304 (who are more hesitant).

(²⁶¹) Mazeaud, Les victimes, 19 ; Leveneur, Le défaut, 34–5 ; Calais-Auloy, D 2002. 2458, 2460.

(²⁶²) Above, pp. 441–2.

(²⁶³) Above, p. 27.

(²⁶⁴) Art. 1386–18 al. 2 C. civ.

(²⁶⁵) Above, p. 442.

(²⁶⁶) F. Chabas, ‘La responsabilité pour défaut de sécurité des produits, dans la loi du 19 mai 1998’ GP 1998.2.1111, 1114 and see above, Chap. 14.

(²⁶⁷) Above, pp. 459–60; loi of 9 Dec. 2004, art. 29.

(²⁶⁸) Larroumet, D 1998 Chron. 311, 315–316 (before the ECJ’s decision); Viney and Jourdain, Conditions, 802 .

(²⁶⁹) Below, p. 528.

(²⁷⁰) Above, p. 51.

(²⁷¹) Calais-Auloy, D 2002 Chron. 2458, 2460.

(²⁷²) Above, p. 29.

(²⁷³) Ghestin (1998), 1203 ; Calais-Auloy, D 2002 Chron. 2458, 2460 and above, p. 54.

(²⁷⁴) Above, pp. 65–9.

(²⁷⁵) L. Leveneur, ‘Le défaut’, in Petites affiches, No. 155 (28 Dec. 1988) 28, 33 .

(²⁷⁶) Above, p. 441.

(²⁷⁷) N. Jonquet, A.-C. Maillois and F. Vialla, ‘Les victimes de produits de santé épargnées par la CJCE: Réflexion sur la portée des arrêts du 25 avril 2002 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits de santé’ D 2003 Point de vue, 1299. While the authors do not support their assertions with citation, an example may be found in Civ. (1) 9 May 2001, Bull. civ. I no. 130 (hepatitis C contracted after blood transfusion).

(²⁷⁸) N. Jonquet, A.-C. Maillois and F. Vialla, op, cit. n. 277, 1300.

(²⁷⁹) Ibid., 1301.

(²⁸⁰) Below, pp. 511–14.

(²⁸¹) Loi no. 2002–303, art. 102, above, Chap. 6 at n. 232.

(²⁸²) Calais-Auloy, D 2002 Chron. 2458, 2460.

(²⁸³) Art. 7.

(²⁸⁴) Art. 3 and see below, p. 583.

(²⁸⁵) Below, pp. 662–3.

(²⁸⁶) P. Jourdain, ‘Une loi pour rien? (à propos de la loi du 19 mai 1998 relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux’ Resp. civ. et assur. (1998) Chron. 4, 5 .

(²⁸⁷) G. Viney, ‘L’introduction en droit français de la directive européene du 25 juillet 1985 relative à la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux’ D 1998.Chron. 291, 298–9. There is a certain echo of this idea in Civ.(3) 28 Nov. 2002, pourvoi no. 00–15058, legifrance, where the court rejected the development risks defence against liability imposed on the ground of delictual fault under art. 1382 C. civ. merely on the ground that the loi of 1998 was not retroactive and did not therefore apply to the facts.

(²⁸⁸) Ibid.

(²⁸⁹) Carbonnier, Obligations, 479–80 .

(²⁹⁰) Above, p. 432.

(²⁹¹) Above, pp. 161–4.

(²⁹²) Whittaker (1985) ; J. Stapleton, ‘Products Liability Reform—Real or Illusory?’ (1986) 6 OJLS 392; C. Newdick, ‘The Future of Negligence in Product Liability’ (1987) 103 LQR 288 .

(²⁹³) Above, pp. 450–1.

(²⁹⁴) HL Deb. Vol. 482 col. 1055.

(²⁹⁵) Below, p. 470.

(²⁹⁶) 1987 Act, s. 1(3) and 5(2).

(²⁹⁷) Case C-300/95 of 29 May 1997, Commission v United Kingdom [1997] ECR I-2649, below, pp. 495–9 (which notes that the Commission had five further points of complaint in respect of the 1987 Act which it was persuaded by the UK not to press).

(²⁹⁸) For possible failures to implement the Directive properly see below, p. 470 and G. Howells, ‘Implications of the Implementation and Non-implementation of the EC Products Liability Directive’ (1990) 41 Northern Ireland Law Quarterly 22 .

(²⁹⁹) 1987 Act, Part Part II, on which see above, pp. 334, 406. Part Part III provided new provisions relating to misleading price provisions.

(³⁰⁰) HC Deb.Vol. 115, col. 51 (27 Apr. 1987) (Mr Michael Howard MP).

(³⁰¹) Dti, Implementation of EC Directive on Product Liability, An explanatory and consultative note (Nov. 1985) (‘Dti, Explanatory note’), 8 .

(³⁰²) HL Deb. Vol. 482 cols. 1006–07 (Bill welcomed by the opposition).

(³⁰³) The UK government decided not to exercise the option in art. 16 of the 1985 Directive to introduce an overall limit of liability on the ground that it could lead to injustice in multiple claim situations and to lengthy delays in payment of compensation awards: Dti, Explanatory note, 5–6 .

(³⁰⁴) HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 171 et seq.

(³⁰⁵) Above, p. 446 implemented in the UK by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000, SI 2000 No. 2771 by removing s. 2(4) of the 1987 Act.

(³⁰⁶) HL Deb. Vol. 482 col. 1017 (Lord Abbeydale).

(³⁰⁷) HL Deb. Vol. 483 cols. 820–1 (Baroness Burton of Coventry).

(³⁰⁸) The Times, 7 Jan. 1987.

(³⁰⁹) The Times, 21 Nov. 1987 (reporting Mr. Michael Howard MP).

(³¹⁰) HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 826.

(³¹¹) HL Deb. Vol. 482 col. 1019 (Earl de la Warr); HL Deb. Vol. 482 col. 1049 (Lord Ezra).

(³¹²) The Times, 7 Jan. 1987.

(³¹³) HL Deb. Vol. 482 cols. 821–5 (Amendment No. 54 proposed by Lord Williams of Elvel).

(³¹⁴) Ibid., col. 843 (Lord Lucas).

(³¹⁵) Ibid., col. 840 (Lord Lucas).

(³¹⁶) Ibid., col. 872 (Amendment No. 42 proposed by Lord Airedale) opposed HL Vol. 483 col. 873 (Lord Lucas).

(³¹⁷) Above, p. 450.

(³¹⁸) Above, p. 458.

(³¹⁹) Above, pp. 154–5.

(³²⁰) E.g. Dti, Explanatory Note.

(³²¹) Below, pp. 583–7.

(³²²) Above, pp. 453–4.

(³²³) Nicholas, 5–7 .

(³²⁴) B. Nicholas in Harris and Tallon, Chap. 4, ‘The Pre-contractual Obligation to Disclose Information, English Report’ 166, 178.

(³²⁵) For example, company law in the Companies Acts or civil procedure in the Civil Procedure Rules whose Part 1.1(1) describes them as ‘a new procedural code’.

(³²⁶) Above, p. 452.

(³²⁷) Art. 249 EC.

(³²⁸) Case C-71/92 of 17 Nov. 1993, Commission v Spain, [1993] ECR I-5923 para. 23.

(³²⁹) Ibid., col. 851 (Lord Lucas).

(³³⁰) 1987 Act, s. 1(1).

(³³¹) HL Deb. col. 747 (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, the Lord Advocate).

(³³²) Above, pp. 458–60.

(³³³) There are, e.g., three definitional sections, one of which constructs a definition of ‘supply’ which aims to fit both Parts I and II of the Act and which deals with certain aspects of the Directive’s notion of ‘putting a product into circulation: 1987 Act, ss. 1, 45, 46. And see, e.g., the Act’s treatment of ‘product’, below, p. 478.

(³³⁴) HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 746 referring to 1985 Directive, art. 4.

(³³⁵) Ibid., col. 848 (Baroness Burton of Coventry).

(³³⁶) HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 877–8.

(³³⁷) Ibid., col. 879; EEC Commission, Explanatory Memorandum accompanying proposal of 9 Sept. 1976, Bulletin of EEC Supplement 11/76 para. 20.

(³³⁸) A v The National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289, below, pp. 487–92.

(³³⁹) E.g. Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52 esp. [8], [31]; [2002] 1 AC 481; London Borough of Newham v Khatun [2004] EWCA Civ. 55 [78]–[83]; [2004] 3 WLR 417 (both in the context of the C1993 Directive).

(³⁴⁰) Case C-300/95 of 29 May 1997 Commission v UK [1997] ECR I-2649, below, p. 498.

(³⁴¹) E.g. the legal basis of rights of contribution or recourse (art. 5); the rules governing the suspension and interruption of its periods (art. 10(2)); and rules governing the recovery of ‘non-material damage’ (art. 9 in fine).

(³⁴²) E.g. damage resulting from death or personal injuries and damage to property (below, pp. 503–7); the causal link between ‘defect’ and ‘damage’: below, pp. 511–14.

(³⁴³) Fatal Accidents Act 1976; 1987 Act, s. 6(1) and (2).

(³⁴⁴) Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, s. 1; 1987 Act, s. 6(3).

(³⁴⁵) Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; 1987 Act, s. 6(4) and (5).

(³⁴⁶) Limitation Act 1980, ss. 11A and 14(1)A.

(³⁴⁷) Limitation Act 1980, s. 11A (8).

(³⁴⁸) E.g., the three-year limitation period of the product liability provisions is in effect suspended if the claimant is disabled at the time of the accrual of the cause of action: Limitation Act 1980, s. 28(1) and (7) and see below, pp. 528–9.

(³⁴⁹) E.g. Civil (Liability) Contribution Act 1987, s. 1; HL Deb. Vol. 483 cols. 783–5.

(³⁵⁰) 1987 Act, s. 2(5) and see below, p. 510.

(³⁵¹) Cf. HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 876 (where this was suggested).

(³⁵²) E.g. Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 (Jolley v Sutton LBC [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 433; [2000] 1 WLR 1082 applying the common law rules governing the quantification of damages (at trial) and remoteness of damage (HL); Animals Act 1971 (though these Acts reformed the law on common law foundations). This way of thinking could also be thought to lie behind the courts’ approach to liability in the tort of breach of statutory duty whose general incidents are fixed by the common law where not fixed by the statute in question: Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, para. 11–53 .

(³⁵³) 1985 Directive, art. 9, below, pp. 507–8.

(³⁵⁴) 1987 Act, s. 45(1) ‘personal injury’ (emphasis added).

(³⁵⁵) Above, pp. 161–2.

(³⁵⁶) Below, pp. 507–8.

(³⁵⁷) Above, p. 460. When this was challenged before the European Court, the French government argued that its removal of the threshold of liability was lawful following the French principle that immunity from civil liability was contrary to ordre public: Case 52/00, Commission v France, ECR 2002 I-03827, para. 33. The Court rejected this argument.

(³⁵⁸) There are statutory precedents for restricting the type of harm recoverable under a statutory liability: Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (recovery by trespassers for personal injury and death but not damage to property).

(³⁵⁹) HL Deb. Vol. 483 col. 877.

(³⁶⁰) See above, pp. 205–7.

(³⁶¹) Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd. [1995] 2 AC 145 and see Chitty on Contracts para. 1–116 et seq.

(³⁶²) See the discussion of the late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century approach to the option of claiming between contract and tort in Chitty on Contracts paras. 1–096–1–097, 1–105–1–108 and S. Whittaker, The Relationship between Contract and Tort: a Comparative Study of French and English Law (Oxford, D.phil. thesis), Chap. 8.

(³⁶³) Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 14(2), above, p. 236.

(³⁶⁴) Above, pp. 243–4.

(³⁶⁵) Above, pp. 221–3, 224–5.

(³⁶⁶) Cf. below, p. 474 concerning the relationship between consumer safety and civil liability.

(³⁶⁷) Above, pp. 245–7.

(³⁶⁸) Above, pp. 458, 460–1.

(³⁶⁹) Above, p. 461.

(³⁷⁰) Consumer Protection Act 1961, s. 3(1); Consumer Safety Act 1978, s. 6.

(³⁷¹) Dti, Consultative note, 9–10 and see previously The Safety of Goods (1984) Cmnd. 9302, para. 43.

(³⁷²) 1987 Act, s. 2 and s. 10 respectively.

(³⁷³) Ibid., s. 4 and s. 39 respectively

(³⁷⁴) Ibid., s. 41.

(³⁷⁵) Above, pp. 440–4.

(³⁷⁶) Case C-183/00, above, pp. 442–3.

(³⁷⁷) Above, p. 441.

(³⁷⁸) Consumer Protection Act 1961, s. 3(1).

(³⁷⁹) Above, pp. 218–20.

(³⁸⁰) Above, p. 45.

(³⁸¹) Chabas, op. cit. n. 266, 1114, above, p. 462.

A Closer Look at the Product Liability Directive

SIMON WHITTAKER

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198256137.003.0017

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter explores the Product Liability Directive’s provisions in more detail, looking at how they have been implemented and interpreted by French and English lawyers. In the case of French law, we still have to rely on la doctrine, given that there are only one or two decisions applying the loi of 1998 itself: the jurisprudence of the 1990s which ‘implemented’ the Directive can be only an approximate guide given its formal basis in other provisions of the Civil Code and its doubtful present status. In the case of English law, there are a handful of decisions applying the 1987 Act, including the important decision in A v The National Blood Authority. There are also two important decisions of the European Court itself in Commission v United Kingdom and Veedfald v Århus Amtskommune.

Keywords:   liability law, product liability, French law, English law

In this chapter I shall explore the Product Liability Directive’s provisions in more detail, looking at how they have been implemented and interpreted by French and English lawyers, leaving until Chapter 18 how the liability they create affects the patterns of liability for products.¹ In the case of French law, we still have to rely on la doctrine given that there are only one or two decisions applying the loi of 1998 itself: the jurisprudence of the 1990s which ‘implemented’ the Directive can be only an approximate guide given its formal basis in other provisions of the Civil Code and its doubtful present status.² In the case of English law, there are a handful of decisions applying the 1987 Act, including the important decision in A v The National Blood Authority.³ There are also two important decisions of the European Court itself in Commission v United Kingdom⁴ and Veedfald v Århus Amtskommune.⁵