The harmonisation of european product liability rules: French and english law

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 419-430

  Taylor, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954949873     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063260     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Council Directive of 25 July 1985 (85/374/EEC) (1985) OJ. L210/29.
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 Jan. 1993). 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).
3. Preamble, para.l.
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, “Lharmonisation de la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux. Une étude comparative du droit anglais et du droit français” L.G.DJ. (to be published).
6. Consumer Protection Act, s.2(6); Loi du 19 mai 1998, Art.20.
7. EC Bulletin N0.11/76, No 30, p. 20.
8. Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-300/95), 29 May 1997.
9. Idem, para.26.
10. Idem, para.28.
11. 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).
12. Y. Markovits, “La Directive CEE du 25 juillet 1985 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux” L.G.DJ., 1990, No 350
13. C Larroumet, “La convention européenne et la proposition d'une directive des communautés européennes en matière de responsabilitè du fait des produits” Droit et pratique du commerce international, mai 1978, tome 4, No.l, p.29.
14. C. Newdick, “Risk, Uncertainty and ‘Knowledge’ in the Development Risk Defence” (1991) A.A.L.R. 309,314.
15. [1972] 13 K.I.R. 255.
16. [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 54.
17. 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.
18. 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. 854
19. Wells v. Buckland Sand [1965] Q.B. 170.
20. See also Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q.B. 256
21. and more recently Bowerman v. Association of British Travel Agents [1996] C.L.C. 451.
22. Carroll v. Fearon, The Times, 26 Jan. 1998 (CA)
23. Mason v. Williams & Williams [1955] 1 W.L.R. 549
24. Davie v. New Merlon Board Mills Ltd [1957] 2 Q.B. 368.
25. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] 1 All E.R. 283.
26. C Newdick, “The Future of Negligence in Product Liability” (1987) L.Q.R. 289,294.
27. Lambert v. Lewis [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 610.
28. Stokes v. C.K.N (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1776.
29. Thompson v. Smiths Ship Repairers Ltd [1984] 1 All E.R. 88.
30. Kubach v. Holland [1937] 3 All E.R. 907.
31. Andrews v. Hopkinson [1957] 1 Q.B. 229
32. Watson v. Buckley, Osborne, Garrett & Co. [1940] 1 AU E.R. 174.
33. Cass. civ. 1™, 21 oct 1925, D.P. 1926,1, rapport du conseiller Celice, note L. JosseraNd
34. Cass. civ. 1™, 24 nov. 1954, J.CP. 1955, II, 8565, note HB
35. Rennes 25 nov. 1955, Gaz. Pal. 1956,1, 137.
36. Cass. com. 17 avril 1971, J.CP. 1972, II, 17280, note Boitard and Rabut
37. Cass. civ. 1™, 21 nov. 1972, Bull. civ. I, p.224, No.257.
38. Cass. com. 22 nov. 1965, Bull. civ. III, No.593
39. Cass. com. 18 fév. 1992, Bull. civ. IV, No.82.
40. J. Huet, “Traité de droit civil. Les principaux contrats spéciaux” L.G.DJ. 1996, p.263, No.111328
41. Trib. Civ. Seine 21 déc. 1956, D. 1957, p.47
42. Req. 18 mars 1924, DH. 1924, p.261.
43. Cass. civ. 1™, 20 mars 1989, D. 1989, p.581, note P. Malaurie
44. Cass. civ. 1™, 22 juin 1991, RTD civ. 1991, p.539
45. Cass. civ. lre, 11 juin 1991, Bull civ. 1, No.201
46. Cass. civ. 1”, 17 janv. 1995, Bull civ. I, No.43, D. 1995, p350, note P. Jourdain
47. Cass. civ. 1™, 14 nov. 1995, Bull. civ. I, No.414
48. Cass. civ. lre, 9 juillet 1996, J.C.P. 1996,1,3985, note G. Viney Cass.
49. civ. 1re, 28 avril 1998, J.CP. 1998, II, 10088, rapp. P. Sargos.
50. Cass. civ. 1re, 12 avril 1995 (two decisions) J.CP. 1995,1,3893, note G. Viney, Cass. civ. 1”, 9 juillet 1996, D. 1996 jur., note Y. Lambert-Faivre.
51. P. Remy, “La responsabilité contractuelle: histoire d'un faux concept” RTD civ. 1997, p.323.
52. Cass. com. 27 avril 1971, J.C.P. 1972, II, 17280,1re espèce, note Boitard and Rabut
53. Cass. com. 15 mai 1972, Bull. civ. IV, p.143, No.144
54. Cass. civ. 1re, 9 mars 1983, Bull. civ. I, No.92, p.81
55. Ass. Plén. 7 fév. 1986, D. 1986, p.293, note A. Bemabent
56. G. Viney, “Traité de droit civil. Introduction é la responsabilité” L.G.DJ. 1995, p.339, No.189–1
57. J. Ghestin and B. Desche, “Traité des contrats. La vente” L.D.GJ., 1990, p.1036, No.1015.
58. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the case Base v. Proiois, J.C.P. 1991, II, 21743, note G. Viney, D. 1991, p.549, note J. Ghestin
59. P. Jourdain, “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.
60. Cass. civ. 1™, 21 mars 1962, Bull. civ. 1,155
61. Cass. civ. 1™, 5 raai 1964, Bull. civ. 1,181.
62. Planet Wattohm v. CPAMdu Morbihan ets., D. 1995, inf. Rap. p.67
63. J.C.P. 1995, IV, 702
64. J.C.P. 1995,1, 3853, obs. G. Viney, RTD civ. 1995, p.631, note P. Jourdain.
65. 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. 1942,1,217, note H. Mazeaud.
66. Cass. civ. 2°, 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).
67. 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.
68. Cass. civ. 1re, 12 nov. 1975,J.C.P. 1976, U, 18479 (lre espèce), note G. Viney
69. Cass. civ. 2e 4 juin 1984, Gaz. Pal. 1984, 2, 634, note F. Chabas
70. V.H.L.J. Mazeaud, “Traité de la responsabilité civile” t.II, 6e édition, No.1160–2 et s.
71. G. Viney, “La responsabilité: conditions” No.691 et s.
72. Paris, 27 nov. 1978, E.L.M. Leblanc v. Leroy (unrep.)
73. Cass. civ. 2e, 3 oct. 1979, J.C.P. 1980, IV, p.360
74. Cass. civ. 1”, 2 fév. 1982, D. 1982, IR, p.330.
75. G. Viney, “L'indemnisation des atteintes à la sécurité des consommateurs en droit français”, in Sécurué des consommateurs el reponsabilité du fau des produits défectueux (Paris L.G.DJ. 1987), p.71 at p.82.
76. Cass. civ. 2e, 5 juin 1971, Bull. civ. II, No.204 p.145 (fizzy drink)
77. Cass. civ. 2e, 29 avril 1982, Gaz. Pal. 1982, T sem., p 331, note F.C. (aerosol can).
78. Cass. civ. T, 10 fév. 1982 J.C.P. 1983.11.20069, note Coeuret.
79. Aix en Provence, 8 mai 1981, J.C.P. 1982.11.19819, note Sarraz-Bournet.
80. Rennes, 20 juin 1975, D. 1976, 351, note Tunc.
81. F. Leduc, “La spécificdté de la responsabilité contractuelle du fait des choses” D. 1996 chr.164.
82. J.C.P. 1996,1, 3944, obs. G. Viney.
83. Art.2262 Code civil. Cass. soc. 18 avril 1991, Bull. civ. V, No 598.
84. Art.2270–1 Code civil.
85. M. Cabanel, Débats Sénat 21 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, col.28
86. M. Bimbenet, Débats Sénat 21 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, coL30
87. Philippe Duron, Débats Assemblée Nationale, 30 avril 1998, compte rendu analytique officiel, p.4.
88. Loi No.85–677 du 5 juillet 1985.
89. 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'indemni-sation des victimes des catastrophes technologiques” Gaz. Pal. 1997, doctrine, p 337.