Skip to content

Country:

Poland

Court:

Court of Appeal in Katowice, the judgement of 10 October 1996, I ACr 500/96; Wokanda 2/1998.

Topics:

Liability for defects in manufacture, force majeure

Articles:

N/a - before the implementation of the Directive.

Facts:

The father of the claimant bought a bottle of Pepsi Cola in a glass bottle with a metal cap. While opening the bottle the claimant was hit on the eye with the cap. After a number of operations the claimant's eyesight was still reduced in 27,5 %, and she was unable to perform her chosen profession of a gardener. During the court proceedings the experts were unable to confirm with absolute certainty the reasons for the accident. The bottle was missing and the cap was damaged while it was transported to one of the experts. An expert expressed the view that such an accident could have been caused by a whole series of physical, technical and biological factors.

Questions:

1. Should the defendant producer of the bottle be liable if the cause of injury was purely incidental?

2. Should the cause of the accident be treated as force majeure and therefore exempt the defendant from liability?

Decision:

The legal basis for the decision was Article 415 of the Civil Code - the provision establishing the general liability in tort, based upon fault. The court held that all products, provided they have not been misused, must be safe and no "incidental" causes of accidents should be possible. If such an accident indeed takes place, it demonstrates defective manufacture. The accident which took place in this case cannot be treated as force majeure (understood as an unusual, external and impossible to foresee and prevent event, not a mere accident). A force majeure, in the mind of the court, would be natural catastrophes (vis naturalis), acts of authorities (vis imperii) and military acts (vis armata).

Comments:

This is a very important judgement in the Polish jurisprudence on product liability, as it very clearly articulates the presumption of fault from the mere existence of accident which led to injury. It seems that only an event classified as force majeure could exonerate the defendant, and the meaning of this notion was interpreted very narrowly. An interesting factor is also that the defendant who placed his name on the bottle was not the true producer - the company was however treated as such by the court because it was impossible for the claimant to ascertain the identity of the true producer.

-
Donate Now Keep In Touch
Save and continue