Country:

Spain

Court:

Provincial Audience of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Judgement of 23 September 2000

Topics:

Responsibility of the supplier in case of unknown manufacturer.

Articles:

Product Liability Act 22/1994 (PLA) Articles 1, 4(3),

Facts:

The claimant purchased a ladder which gave way one month later, resulting in several body injuries. Expert evidence was shown that the defect was one of manufacture. The injured party brought actions against the supplier of the ladder on the basis of Article 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court of First Instance rejected the plaintiff's arguments and did not hold the supplier liable for any damage. The claimants appealed and the Court fully confirmed the decision of the lower court.

Decision:

The Court first grappled with the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, stating that this is a general Act and therefore the more specific PLA is to be applied.

Secondly, while it is true that the PLA is mainly addressed to assess the liability of manufacturers and importers (Article 1 ), suppliers may also become liable in virtue of Article 4 (3). The Court pointed out that the Act establishes that:

"Where the producer of the product cannot be identified, each supplier of the product shall be treated as its producer unless he informs the injured person, within a period of 3 months of the identity of the producer or of the person who supplied him with the product."

The Court acknowledged that as result of the above quoted article, the figure of the supplier remains in a more secondary or subsidiary status. As a consequence, the supply will only be liable for damages where the manufacturer is unknown. The Court upheld the decision of the First Instance since the manufacturer is not only known but also easily identifiable. The Court concluded that the claimant sued the wrong person and therefore no recovery of damages could take place.

Comments:

Spanish patchy torts system has led to many problems of interpretation, not only to the parties to a dispute but also to practitioners and judges themselves. Although in this case the issues were relatively clear, it remains yet to establish clear criteria of applicability of the relevant Acts. Yet, the decision made it clear that the CPA is to have a lesser reduced applicability in that the CPA is deemed to be more specific. Accordingly, claimants should bring actions against suppliers provided both manufacturer and importer cannot be identified.