Country:
France
Court:
Topics:
Causation, proof of
Defect, proof of
Contractual liability
Development risk defence derogation by a Member State
Interpretation of national law in conformity with directive
Articles:
Art. 4, 13 & 15 under 1c (abolished), Directive 85/374
Facts:
During surgery a patient received HIV-infected blood, and as a result subsequently contracted and died of AIDS. His heirs brought an action for a declaration of liability and damages against the transfusion centre that provided the blood and its insurance company. The Court of Appeal confirmed the centre's liability but modified the amount of damages payable to the claimants.
Legal questions:
(1) What are the conditions of liability? Does the contractual liability of the supplier require proof of fault on his part? Is it possible to establish a causal relationship between defect and damage when, at the time of the facts of the case, HIV was undetectable?
(2) Was the Court of Appeal obliged to interpret the national law in the light of the Directive?
Decisions:
(1) The Cour de Cassation confirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The contract providing for the supply of blood or blood products placed an obligation upon the transfusion centre to deliver products exempt from any defect. The defendant could disprove causation by showing that an external cause ('cause étrangère') was at the root of the damage. However, an internal defect of the product, even if this was undetectable, did constitute a 'cause étrangère.'
(2) No. A national judge is normally obliged to interpret national law in the light of a directive if the subject matter of the case falls within the scope of the directive. However this is only so where the directive has a binding character and provides no option for the Member State as to the adaptation of national law to community law. This is not the case here since article 15-1 c of the Directive leaves Member States the possibility to introduce or not in their national legislation a development risk defence.
Comments:
Breach of contract, or a contractual fault, is made out here merely by the proof of a defect. The extent of the contractual obligation is thus impressive. The contractor must deliver products that are free from defects.