Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:29:22.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Harmonisation of European Product Liability Rules: French and English Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Simon Taylor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1985 European Communities Directive on Product Liability1 aims to harmonise member State product liability rules and to improve the level of protection of victims by basing the liability of producers for physical injury and damage to personal goods on the proof that the victim's damage was caused by a defect in the product supplied. On 19 May 1998, ten years after the deadline for transposition, France finally enacted legislation incorporating the Directive into national law.2 The Directive was incorporated into English law by Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 419 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

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.)

References

1. Council Directive of 25 07 1985 (85/374/EEC) (1985) O.J. L210/29.Google Scholar

2. Loi No.98–389 du 19 mai 1998. In 1993 France was judged by the ECJ to be in non-compliance with its Treaty obligations (C291/91, 15 mai 1993)Google Scholar. The further delay by the legislator led to the threat of enforcement procedures by the Court with a fine of up to 4 million francs per day. It was the threat of this fine that finally led the government to push for the transposition of the Directive (see e.g. Mme Guigou, garde des sceaux, Justice Minister, Débats Assemblée Nationale 25 mars 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, p.21).Google Scholar

3. Preamble, para.1.

4. Preamble, para.2.

5. There are a considerable number of other actual or potential differences between English and French law. Whereas the Consumer Protection Act excludes primary agricultural products from its field of application, the new French Law includes them (derogation permitted by Art.15 of the Directive). Many of the key concepts used in the Directive are left without precise definition. Notions such as “product”, “put into circulation” and “defect” leave scope for differences in interpretation at national level. Other areas, such as causation, recourse actions, calculation of damages and access to justice are not dealt with by the Directive and thus provide obvious potential for divergence in approach. See S. Taylor, “L'harmonisation de la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux. Une étude comparative du droit anglais et du droit français” L.G.D.J. (to be published).

6. Consumer Protection Act, s.2(6); Loi du 19 mai 1998, Art.20.

7. EC Bulletin No.11/76, No.30, p.20.Google Scholar

8. Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-300/95), 29 May 1997.

9. Paras.38–39.

10. Idem, para.26.

11. Idem, para.28.

12. Idem, para.29. For Advocate General Tesauro, there is a considerable difference between research published by an American academic in an English language periodical with a worldwide circulation, and a study published by a Manchurian researcher in Chinese. Whilst the first would in his view be “accessible”, the second would not (opinion delivered 23 Jan. 1997, paras.23—24).

13. Y. Markovits, “La Directive CEE du 25 juillet 1985 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux” L.G.D.J., 1990, No.350; Larroumet, C., “La convention européenne et la proposition d'une directive des communautés européennes en matière de responsabilité du fait des produits” Droit et pratique du commerce international, mai 1978, tome 4, No.1, p.29.Google Scholar

14. Newdick, C., “Risk, Uncertainty and ‘Knowledge’ in the Development Risk Defence” (1991) A.A.L.R. 309, 314.Google Scholar

15. The initial projet de loi presented by the government in 1990 included a development risks defence, but it was rejected by the Sénat on their second reading in 1992. The clause was once again included in a new proposition de loi laid before the Assemblée Nationale in 1993 and was adopted by it in Mar. 1997. However, things were again delayed when the new socialist government came to power in May 1997. The new government favoured excluding the development risks defence for all health products, in view of the great risks presented by these products, and for elements of the human body, due to the tragedy of the contamination of patients with the HIV virus through the transfusion of infected blood. This was opposed by the Sénat, who preferred to allow the development risks defence for all products. The Law finally passed is a compromise, producers of health products being able to rely on the defence, while the defence is not available where the damage is caused by an element of the human body or a product extracted from it.

16. [1972] 13 K.I.R. 255.Google Scholar

17. However, the case does not specify if the duty is simply to include warnings with products put into circulation after the discovery of the danger or if the producer must also warn buyers of products already in circulation.

18. (1978)unrep.

19. [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 54.Google Scholar

20. Shops such as Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury would fall within this category when the product is sold under their brand name.

21. S.2(3).

22. Jane Stapleton makes this point concerning the liability of the supplier under the Directive and the Consumer Protection Act, Product Liability (1994), p.293. The point therefore applies even more strongly to liability of the supplier under the French Law.Google Scholar

23. S.14(2)(B)(d).

24. The court occasionally allows the buyer to sue the manufacturer on a collateral contract on the basis of representations made to the plaintiff: Shanklin Pier Ltd v. Delel Products Ltd [1951] 2 K.B. 854Google Scholar; Wells v. Buckland Sand [1965] Q.B. 170Google Scholar. See also Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q.B. 256Google Scholar, and more recently Bowerman v. Association of British Travel Agents [1996] C.L.C. 451.Google Scholar

25. Carroll v. Fearon, The Times, 26 01 1998 (CA)Google Scholar; Mason v. Williams & Williams [1955] 1 W.L.R. 549Google Scholar; Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1957] 2 Q.B. 368.Google Scholar

26. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] 1 All E.R. 283.Google Scholar

27. Newdick, C., “The Future of Negligence in Product Liability” (1987) L.Q.R. 289, 294.Google Scholar

28. Lambert v. Lewis [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 610.Google Scholar

29. Stokes v. G.K.N (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1776.Google Scholar

30. Thompson v. Smiths Ship Repairers Ltd [1984] 1 All E.R. 88.Google Scholar

31. Kubach v. Holland [1937] 3 All E.R. 907.Google Scholar

32. Andrews v. Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229Google Scholar; Watson v. Buckley, Osborne, Garrett & Co. [1940] 1 All E.R. 174.Google Scholar

33. Cass. civ. 1re, 21 10 1925, D.P. 1926, 1, rapport du conseiller Celice, note L. Josseraiid; Cass. civ. 1re, 24 nov. 1954, J.C.P. 1955, II, 8565, note HBGoogle Scholar; Rennes 25 11 1955, Gaz. Pal. 1956, I, 137.Google Scholar

34. Cass. com. 17 avril 1971, J.C.P. 1972, II, 17280, note Boitard and Rabut; Cass. civ. 1re, 21 11 1972, Bull. civ. I, p.224, No.257.Google Scholar

35. Cass. com. 22 nov. 1965, Bull. civ. III, No.593; Cass. com. 18 fév. 1992, Bull. civ. IV, No.82.

36. Huet, J., “Traité de droit civil. Les principaux contrats spéciaux” L.G.D.J. 1996, p.263, No.111328Google Scholar; Trib. Civ. Seine 21 déc. 1956, D. 1957, p.47Google Scholar; Req. 18 mars 1924, DH. 1924, p.261.Google Scholar

37. Cass. civ. 1re, 20 mars 1989, D. 1989, p.581Google Scholar, note Malaurie, P.; Cass. civ. 1re, 22 juin 1991, RTD civ. 1991, p.539Google Scholar; Cass. civ. 1re, 11 juin 1991, Bull civ. I, No.201; Cass. civ. 1re, 17 janv. 1995Google Scholar, Bull civ. I, No.43, D. 1995, p.350Google Scholar, note Jourdain, P.; Cass. civ. 1re, 14 nov. 1995, Bull. civ. I, No.414Google Scholar; Cass. civ. 1re, 9 juillet 1996, J.C.P. 1996, I, 3985Google Scholar, note Viney, G.; Cass. civ. 1re, 28 avril 1998, J.C.P. 1998, II, 10088, rapp. P. Sargos.Google Scholar

38. Cass. civ. 1re, 12 avril 1995 (two decisions) J.C.P. 1995, I, 3893Google Scholar, note Viney, G., Cass. civ. 1re, 9 juillet 1996, D. 1996 jur., note Y. Lambert-Faivre.Google Scholar

39. Remy, P., “La responsabilité contractuelle: histoire d'un faux concept” RTD civ. 1997, p.323.Google Scholar

40. Cass. com. 27 avril 1971, J.C.P. 1972, II, 17280, 1re espèce, note Boitard and Rabut; Cass. com. 15 mai 1972, Bull. civ. IV, p.143, No.144, Cass. civ. 1re, 9 mars 1983, Bull. civ. I, No.92, p.81Google Scholar; Ass. Plén. 7 fév. 1986, D. 1986, p.293Google Scholar, note Bernabent, A.; Viney, G., “Trait´e de droit civil. Introduction à la responsabilité” L.G.D.J. 1995, p.339, No.189–1Google Scholar; Ghestin, J. and Desche, B., “Traité des contrats. La vente” L.D.G.J., 1990, p.1036, No.1015.Google Scholar

41. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the case Base v. Protois, J.C.P. 1991, II, 21743Google Scholar, note Viney, G.; D. 1991, p.549Google Scholar, note Ghestin, J.; Jourdain, P., “La nature de la responsabilité civile dans les chaînes de contrats après l'arrêt de l'assemblée plénière du 12 juillet 1991” D. 1992, chron. p.149.Google Scholar

42. “Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer.”

43. Cass. civ. 1re, 21 mars 1962, Bull. civ. I, 155; Cass. civ. 1re, 5 mai 1964, Bull. civ. I, 181.

44. Planet Wattohm v. CPAM du Morbihan et s., D. 1995, inf. Rap. p.67Google Scholar; J.C.P. 1995, IV, 702Google Scholar; J.C.P. 1995, I, 3853, obs. Viney, G.; RTD civ. 1995, p.631, note P. Jourdain.Google Scholar

45. “On est responsable non seulement du dommage que l'on cause par son propre fait, mais encore de celui qui est causé par … des choses que l'on a sous sa garde.”

46. According to the formula established by the Chambre réunie of the Cour de Cassation in the case Franck, 2 décembre 1941, D.C 1942, p.25, note Ripert; S. 1942, I, 217, note H. Mazeaud.Google Scholar

47. Cass. civ. 2e, 11 janv. 1995, Bull. civ. II, No.18 (a plate covering a roof light which broke under the weight of a person who had climbed on the roof to carry out an official inspection was held not to be the cause of the damage since it was in its normal position and was in good condition). See also Cass. civ. 2e, 29 mai 1964, J.C.P. 1965, II, 14248, note Boré. This in effect comes down to a requirement that the “thing” be defective for the presumption to operate.

48. Cass. civ. 1re, 12 11 1975, J.C.P. 1976, 11, 18479 (1re espèce)Google Scholar, note Viney, G., Cass. civ. 2e 4 juin 1984, Gaz. Pal. 1984, 2, 634, note F. Chabas; V.H., L., J. Mazeaud, “Traité de la responsabilité civile” t.II, 6e édition, No.1160–2 et s.; G. Viney, “La responsabilité: conditions” No.691 et s.Google Scholar

49. Paris, 27 11. 1978, E.L.M. Leblanc v. Leroy (unrep.); Cass. civ. 2e, 3 10. 1979, J.C.P. 1980, IV, p.360Google Scholar; Cass. civ. 1re, 2 fév. 1982, D. 1982, IR, p.330Google Scholar. Viney, G., “L'indemnisation des atteintes à la sécurité des consomraateurs en droit français”, in Sécurité des consommateurs et responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux (Paris L.G.D.J. 1987), p.71 at p.82.Google Scholar

50. Cass. civ. 2e, 5 juin 1971, Bull. civ. II, No.204 p.145 (fizzy drink)Google Scholar; Cass. civ. 2e, 29 avril 1982, Gaz. Pal. 1982, 2e sem., p.331, note F.C. (aerosol can).Google Scholar

51. Cass. civ. 2e, 10 fév. 1982 J.C.P. 1983.II.20069, note Cocuret.

52. Aix en Provence, 8 mai 1981, J.C.P. 1982.II.19819, note Sarraz-Bournet.Google Scholar

53. Rennes, 20 juin 1975, D. 1976, 351, note Tunc.Google Scholar

54. F. Leduc, “La spécificité de la responsabilité contractuelle du fait des choses” D. 1996 chr.164.

55. J.C.P. 1996, I, 3944, obs. G. Viney.

56. Art.2262 Code civil. Cass. soc. 18 avril 1991, Bull. civ. V, No.598.

57. Art.2270–1 Code civil.

58. Art.18, Law of 19 05 1998; Consumer Protection Act, Sched.I, introducing a new s.11A in the Limitation Act 1980; Art.11 of the Directive.Google Scholar

59. Art.7(a)

60. As Mme Guigou, Justice Minister, stated: “it is not possible to state that the defence penalises victims, since they can rely on our case law, which establishes a strict ‘obligation de sécurité’ even in the case of non-detectable defects”: Débats Sénat, 5 fév. 1998, compterendu analytique officiel, No.4.

61. Cabanel, M., Débats Sénat 21 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, col.28Google Scholar; Bimbenet, M., Débats Sénat 21 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, col.30Google Scholar; Philippe Duron, Débats Assemblée Nationale, 30 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, p.4.Google Scholar

62. Loi No.85–677 du 5 juillet 1985.Google Scholar

63. Certain writers are in fact already calling for the establishment of an indemnity fund for victims of “catastrophes”. Marie-Pierre Camproux-Duffrene, “Réflexion sur l'indemnisation des victimes des catastrophes technologiques” Gaz. Pal. 1997, doctrine, p.337.Google Scholar