Skip to content

Court:

Athens Court of Appeals, Decision No 47/2006

Legal Topics:

Liability of the producer for defective products

Definition of a defective product

Tort and illegal behavior

Consumer protection

Producer's defense

Statute of limitation for moral harm damages

Claimant's contributory negligence

Articles:

Articles 6 and 7, 8 of Law 2251/1994

Articles 914, 925, 932, 937 and 281 of Civil Code.

Facts:

On 16 July 1999, the claimant drank one glass grapefruit juice she poured into a glass from a carton box she had bought a few days before from a super-market. When claimant poured additional juice into the glass, she saw a solid oblong object, 15-18 cm long, lizard-shaped and green-colored falling out of the carton box and into the glass. The claimant suffered from severe abdominal pains and vomiting and was transferred to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis and hypertension crisis. After her hospitalization the claimant took the sample of the object to the local Chemical Service, which concluded it was organic and informed her that according to the Foods and Beverages Code "the existence of an alien object inside the packaging of a food or beverage makes it inappropriate for consuming and is therefore prohibited". Claimant filed a claim for horal harm compensation against producer of the juice.

Legal Questions:

What product is considered defective? What must a claimant's action contain? What must by proven by claimant and what by defendant?

Decision:

The Court accepted that according to Law 2251/1994 suppliers are obliged to circulate only safe products. Therefore, the law establishes a specific business obligation for suppliers, the breach of which (obligation) constitutes a violation of a compulsory legal provision and creates suppliers' liability in tort.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the defect and the identity of the product, the damage caused from its customary and normal use and the causal link between defect and damage are elements that claimant must prove in order to claim compensation based on producer's liability rules. However the cause of the damaging defectiveness of a product (i.e. the specific breach of the obligation of the producer that led to the defectiveness) is something that a consumer is unable to define and demonstrate, given that the consumer is not aware of the production and circulation procedures and cannot know the acts or omissions that led to the defectiveness. Therefore the analogous application of article 925 of Greek Civil Code is appropriate (which mirrors the theory of the so-called "spheres of influence" or theory of the "origin of danger"); according to it, it is the producer that has the obligation to prove that there was no negligence while the product was under his influence (during product's production, packaging, maintenance and distribution up to final consumer).

Further, the Court accepted that the company - producer of the juice was liable for the acts and omissions of its employees, the negligence of whom led to the defectiveness of the product.

Also, the Court ruled that the claimant suffered severe physical and moral damage and granted her moral harm compensation of the amount of € 60,000.

On a statute of limitation defense raised by producer, the Court held that despite lapse of the three year period under the P/L law, the 5-year limitation period under tort allowed claimant to claim damages.

On the contributory negligence also raised by producer, the Court concluded that it was not the case here and claimant should not examine the juice before drinking it as producer claimed.

Lastly the Court rejected an expert's appointment requested by defendant as not required under the circumstances.

Comment:

This latest Greek case law reiterates an already developed thesis of Greek jurisprudence which is firm in holding that the difficulties of a damaged consumer to prove what a manufacturer did or did not do during the design or manufacture of a product caused damages, establishes an obligation of the manufacturer to prove his lack of negligence while the product was within manufacturer's "control" rather than an obligation of the consumer to prove the existence of such manufacturer's negligence.

Moreover, the liability of a company for the negligence of its employees, already existing in other areas of tort, is also applicable in the field of product liability cases.

Original Text:

Click here to download this in pdf format

-
Donate Now Keep In Touch
Save and continue