Skip to content

Country;

Portugal

Court:

Case Decision from the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice of the 9th of September of 2010 (Case 63/10.0YFLSB)

Topics:

Defect

Burden of proof

Facts:

A bought a bottle of beer from a commercial establishment. This company evolves in the area of beverages' production and distribution. When A was already in his house, the bottle exploded in his hands, throwing a piece of glass into his eye. This event almost made him lost his vision.

Decision:

The Supreme Court of Justice considered that «product liability suits best the protection of consumers, who are exposed to the dangers that come along with deficient goods that are traded in mass markets. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the deficiency of the product, but he does not have to prove that such deficiency existed when the producer put the product into circulation. The Law presumes it. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered that the producer should pay an indemnity for the plaintiffs' blindness.

Ratio of the decision:

Firstly, the Court started to discuss the question of the burden of proof of the products' deficiencies, of the causation link between the product deficiencies and damages and also of the evidence related to the inexistence of deficiencies at the moment the product was placed in the market. Regarding article 4.º of the Decree-law nº 383/93, the Court reminded "that a product is considered to be dysfunctional when it does not offer safety standards regarding all its forms, such presentation or way of using, since the moment that it is placed in the market. Consequently, the Court determined that in this situation the relevance rested in the products safety standards and not in its aptitude to fulfill its commercial purpose. The Court also differentiates product liability, as a way of liability for security, from the sellers' liability, as a way to hold liability for the lack of conformity or quality of the goods that are sold.

The Court also stated that an absolute product security is not required for its producer to guarantee. In other words, the level of security that must be guaranteed by the producer should correspond to the normal and predictable expectations of a reasonable and normal consumer. It should also attend to the type of use that the product will be submitted to. Such deficiencies should be proved by the plaintiff. But he just has to prove their existence, rather than having to prove the moment the deficiencies occurred, since facts of this nature are presumed by Law. In the case, the plaintiff proved the deficiency in the bottle. The moment when it occurred was unable to be proven. However, regarding article 5.º line b) of the referred Decree-law, the Court assumed that the deficiency exists from the moment the product was put into circulation. The Court also considered that, being relevant the theory of adequacy, it was easy to prove the causation between the deficiency and the damages. So, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff.

References:

About this case, see :

- Francisco Luís Alves, A Responsabilidade do Produtor: soluções actuais e perspectivas futuras, Verbo Jurídico.net.com;

- Calvão da Silva, Responsabilidade civil do produtor, Almedina, Coimbra, 1999;

- André Neves Mouzinho, A Responsabilidade Objectiva do Produtor, Verbo Jurídico, Julho 2007 [todos eles citados pelo Acórdão sumariado]

-
Donate Now Keep In Touch
Save and continue