Skip to content

Country:

Spain

Court:

Court of Appeal of Barcelona, Judgement of 19 April 2002 [JUR 2002184459]

Topics:

Liability of the supplier

Articles:

Product Liability Act (LRPD), Sole Additional Provision.

Facts:

The victim suffered personal injury when being knocked by the hydraulic tube of an industrial machine which was affected by a defect. The victim brought a claim against the supplier who delivered the defective machine on the grounds of liability provided in the Sole Additional Provision of the LRPD, which sets out that "[T]he supplier of a defective product shall be responsible, as if he were the manufacturer, when he has supplied the product with knowledge of the existence of the defect. In this case, the supplier may bring a claim for recovery against the manufacturer or importer." The claim was rejected by the Court of First Instance. However, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona held the supplier liable, according to the Sole Additional Provision of the LRPD, arguing that, since he was an expert in that sort of product, he should have detected the defect.

Decision:

"The claimant attributes liability to the defendant for having supplied a defective product which did not provide the required safety measures. The Sole Additional Provision of the Act Ley 22/94 holds the supplier liable when he has supplied the product knowing that it had a defect (...) According to the proof that has been conducted it results that the product (...) did not comply with the conditions of safety required and, since the supplier was a merchant specialised in this sort of products, the Court considers that the Sole Additional Provision of the Act 22/94 applies to this case".

Comments:

The quoted Sole Additional Provision of the LRPD is a specific provision introduced by the Spanish legislator, which can give rise to liability for supplier well beyond the provisions of the Directive. Although is very likely that this provision was meant to hold liable those suppliers who had supplied defective products with intent, courts seem to have turned this liability of the supplier into liability for fault, as the commented decision proves. By contrast, SAP Cáceres 21.6.2002 [JUR 2002226019], where a toy that had been purchased inside of a sealed box was defective, the court stated that the supplier could not have known of the defect when he received the product and, therefore, he could not be held liable according to this Additional Provision.

-
Donate Now Keep In Touch
Save and continue