Country:

Belgium

Court :

Court of First Instance of Namur,5 th civil division / Tribunal de première instance de Namur,5 ème chambre civile

Parties: Alain R. vs Schweppes Belgium SA.

Date: 21 November 1996

Topics:

Manufacturer's liability for a component of a defective product

Articles:

Art.3, 7, 8 of the Act of 25th February 1991 (Product Liability Act)

Facts:

A man is injured by the explosion of a bottle of "Schweppes Indian tonic"

Legal questions:

1. Is the manufacturer of a component of a product responsible for the damages caused by this product, even if the defect does not result from its component?

2. To which extend the victim has to prove the existence of the defect?

Decision:

The company Schweppes Belgium has been held responsible for the damages caused by the explosion of the bottle. The judge appointed an expert to appraise the physical damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Comments:

The defendant (Schweppes) based its defence on the fact that he is not the manufacturer of the glass bottle but only the producer of the drink. As the defect comes from the glass, the defendant claimed not to be liable for this defect according to article 8 f) of the Act of 25th February 1991 (implementation of article 7- f of the Council Directive on product liability) which provides that the producer of a component is not liable if "... the defect is imputable to the design of the product in which the component has been fitted".

The judge is not convinced by this argument, considering first that the duty of the producer is to "ensure that the product he put into circulation is free from defect", even if he is only the producer of the defective component and secondly that the producer shall prove the "total impossibility to detect the existence of the defect" to be discharged from liability.

It should be noted that the manufacturer of the glass was not involve in the lawsuit.

The judge then addressed the question of the proof of the defect, considering that the defect is deductible from the "abnormal behaviour of the thing" which is in this case the explosion of the bottle. This statement lighten the burden of the proof for the claimant who is not thus required to supply technical proof of the defect but only the reality of the explosion at the time of its use.

Click here to download the original document in .pdf format.