Country:

Spain

Court:

Provincial Audience of Murcia, Judgement of 2 April of 2001

Topics:

Need to show the existence of the defect as required by Article 5. Defective airbag never functioned in car crash.

Articles:

Product Liability Act 22/1994, Articles 5 and 6.

Civil code, Article 1101

Facts:

The claimant was injured in a car crash resulting in the appellants seeking damages from both the manufacturer and the supplier of the car. The Court of First Instance held that neither the manufacturer nor the supplier of the car held any liability for defects of the airbag since the claimant failed to show the existence of a defect. The First Instance went to say that the claimant had to show the defect in virtue of Article 5 of the PLA. In addition, the lower court applied Article 1101 of the Spanish Civil code which establishes the principle of contractual fault liability. As a consequence, the burden of the proof moved into the claimant who failed to prove the negligence of the manufacturer of the car..

Decision:

The Court held that the combination between Article 1101 of the Civil code and Article 5 of the Product Liability Act was wrong and therefore reversed the lower decision. The Court argued that the Act to be applied in this case is the PLA so it is for the defendant to arise any of the defences put forward in Article 6 of the PLA. Besides, the claimant needs not show fault at all. He has though to prove the relationship between the defect and the damage. Since it was clear cut that the airbag never came out the crux of the question was for the claimant to show that the accident was considerable enough to have activated the airbag mechanism. The defendants claimed that the airbag is supposed to be activated at a frontal hit and not at a hit on the sides of the car as occurred. Furthermore, the defendants pointed that the form of the accident was far from clear being thus difficult to assess whether the airbag should have functioned.

The expert evidence show that there were not only damages on the sides of the car but also in the very same front. Besides, it was shown that the hit was strong enough to have activated the airbag. The Court hence concluded that there was a defect since the airbag never came out despite the fact that the crash was intense enough to have made the airbag work. In assessing the quantum of damages the Court acknowledged that airbags are designed to prevent thorax and cranial injures while the claimant had a cervical twist only. Accordingly, the Court granted damages at 40% of the quantum sought.

Comments:

Not the first time, the Judiciary confuses the use and meaning of different Acts. Indeed, the overlap among the various relevant Acts has given rise to numerous misjudgements in First Instance.