Country:

Portugal

Court:

Case Decision from the Oporto Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação do Porto) of the 20th of November 2007 (case nº 0725464)

Facts:

The plaintiff is a wine producer that acquired equipment to be installed on his land. Such equipment broke and fell. The defendant did not secure the stability and quality of the product. The plaintiff asked for an indemnity from the equipment producer regarding monetary damages.

Decision:

The Court considered that the plaintiff does not have to prove any fault nor the unlawfulness of the product seller. However, he must demonstrate the deficiency of the product, damages, and causation, so that liability without fault can be deployed. In these terms, the Court considered that the plaintiff should receive an indemnity.

Ratio of the decision:

The Decree-law nº383/89 deals with product liability when damages are caused by products that are put into circulation in the market, regardless of the producers fault. Article 4º of the Decree-law nº 383/89 states that a product is considered to be deficient when it does not fulfill minimum security requirements, that a normal end user should expect it to have. A product is considered to be dysfunctional when it does not offer safety standards regarding all its forms such as the products presentation or use at the moment that it is put into circulation. Due to this wide definition, the legislator tried to narrow down the situations which could lead to compensation. Regarding article 8.º of the decree-law, compensation can only extend to damages that arise from death or personal injury and to damages caused to other goods aimed at personal consumption, rather than the original product and only if it is aimed at private use. The Court decided that the plaintiff proved that the product was deficient, since the treatment that was administered to the product does not correspond to the instructions that were given by the second defendant. The court also considered that the plaintiff proved the existence of pecuniary damages and causation between those and the products deficiencies.

Comments:

There are two reasons for which we may find this case decision odd. Firstly, the equipment was destined to be used within a professional activity and not for personal consumption. Secondly, the only products that were damaged were the deficient equipments. This case decision is contrary to the one decided by the Oporto Court of Appeal from the 17th of June 2004, which distinguishes product liability and liability arising from contract for underperfomed good.