Country:

Spain

Court:

Supreme Court, Judgement of 21 February 2003 [RJ 20032133]

Topics:

Defective bottles. Concept of defect, burden of proof.

Articles:

Spanish Product Liability Act (LRPD) Articles 5 and 6

Facts:

A bottle of white lemonade manufactured by "La Casera" exploded when the claimant placed it into the shopping basket. As a consequence, the splinters seriously damaged the plaintiff, resulting in the claimant's lost of the sight of one eye. The Court of First Instance held both the manufacturer and the distributor liable for the damage suffered and awarded €22,000 as compensation. The Court of Appeal (Audiencia Provincial) of Murcia upheld the decision of the lower court. The manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court in cassation on grounds of ill-application of the Spanish Civil Code and the Spanish Product Liability Act (LRPD).

Decision:

The Court upheld the decision of the two lower courts. According to the Supreme Court the bottle was a defective product in the sense of Article 3 LRPD. The defect resulted from the "explosion of a bottle of glass which occurred neither by manipulation of the same by the consumer, nor by an abusive or inadequate use of the bottle". Moreover, in this case, "nothing indicated that the product was not defective when it was put into circulation". The court also asserts that the notion of defect as established by the LRPD "must be connected, necessarily, with the safety that the product must offer, and if it does not offer this safety, the product must be considered defective, by reversing the burden of the proof, since it corresponds to the manufacturer to prove the suitability of the product or other grounds which could exonerate him from liability".

Comments:

This is the first decision in which the Spanish Supreme Court applies the Product Liability Act. It is noteworthy that the court does not mention Art. 3.2 LRPD, which provides that "[I]n any case, a product is defective if it does not offer the safety regularly offered by the rest of the issues of the same series". This provision establishes a rule of proof which is specific for manufacturing defects and which was clearly applicable to the case. According to this rule, by simply proving that the bottle exploded and caused damage, and that most bottles of white lemonade pertaining to the same series would not have exploded, is sufficient to rebuttably presume the existence of a defect in the product at the time it was put into circulation. In fact, the reasoning made by the decision in order to establish the existence of a defect, in spite of the fact that it does not mention Art. 3.2 LRPD, seems to follow the same line.

Additionally, the decision also used Art. 27.1 c) LGDCU, i.e. the General Act for the Defence of Consumers ands Users, as grounds for the liability of "La Casera", the company manufacturing white lemonade. It must be said openly that the court made a mistake here, since Arts. 25 to 29 LGDCU are not applicable to those goods taht Art. 2 LPRD describes as "products" (see also Frist Final Provision LRPD). Moreover, if the Supreme Court tried to establish the liability of the manufacturer of white lemonade (and not only, of the manufacturer of the bottle) this recourse to the old LGDCU was not necessary either, since LPRD already provides for the possibility of exstablishing the liability of the manufacturer of the final product in Art. 4.d) LRPD, which holds liable "any person who appears to the public as manufacturer by putting his name, corporative name, trade mark or any other sign in the product or in the packaging, wrapping or in any toher elemnt of protection or presentation".