Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T06:45:59.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conclusions

from PART IV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2017

Piotr MacHnikowski
Affiliation:
Professor of Civil Law and head of the Civil Law and Private International Law Department at the University of Wrocław, Poland
Get access

Summary

HARMONISATION OF LAW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONAL LIABILITY REGIMES

This section will discuss the law of the European Union Member States, but also Norwegian law and Swiss law, because – as was demonstrated above – these two systems of law are to a large extent modelled on or inspired by EU legislation. However, it should be remembered that those states enjoy a special status – they are not parties to the EU treaties and are not obliged to implement EU directives.

In all the legal systems examined in this volume, at the time of the entry into force of Directive 85/374/EEC there were legal grounds to claim compensation from the producer of a defective product. They were based on tort liability or contractual liability with numerous modifications and limitations.

Liability caused (at least theoretically) by the fault or negligence of the producer played the key role in tort liability. This type of liability was provided for in Austrian, Danish, English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Polish and Spanish law. A few countries, such as Spain, Norway and probably Switzerland, had also, or exclusively, introduced liability independent of fault. The differences related to the extent to which an act of parliament, or more often case law, modified general principles of the tort regime. Those modifications usually involved adopting a more or less formalised principle stating that even the marketing of a dangerous product may constitute a tort. At times this principle was connected with a presumption of fault or some measures that facilitate proving the fault, eg inferring the existence of a fault from the fact of damage. There were also systems in which general principles of liability had not been extensively modified, even with regard to the process of proving fault. However, there were differences in the detailed conditions that triggered liability; those conditions were of key importance from the perspective of the injured party and the producer. An important difference concerned liability for employees and subcontractors – a crucial factor in respect of products produced on an industrial scale. In some countries (Austria, Germany) limitations on an undertaking's liability for its employees compromised the protection of persons injured by the product.

Type
Chapter
Information
European Product Liability
An Analysis of the State of the Art in the Era of New Technologies
, pp. 669 - 705
Publisher: Intersentia
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Conclusions
    • By Piotr MacHnikowski, Professor of Civil Law and head of the Civil Law and Private International Law Department at the University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Edited by Piotr Machnikowski
  • Book: European Product Liability
  • Online publication: 15 December 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780685243.020
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Conclusions
    • By Piotr MacHnikowski, Professor of Civil Law and head of the Civil Law and Private International Law Department at the University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Edited by Piotr Machnikowski
  • Book: European Product Liability
  • Online publication: 15 December 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780685243.020
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Conclusions
    • By Piotr MacHnikowski, Professor of Civil Law and head of the Civil Law and Private International Law Department at the University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Edited by Piotr Machnikowski
  • Book: European Product Liability
  • Online publication: 15 December 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780685243.020
Available formats
×