Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

The Principles of European Tort Law and Product Liability

View through CrossRef
Abstract The authors of the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) did not intend to regulate in detail the strict liability of a manufacturer for damage caused by a defect in its product. While creating general principles of liability for damage caused otherwise than by breach of an obligation, they had no need to refer to those problems for which uniform and detailed solutions already existed in the European Communities. Product liability was such a problem (the only one in the area of tort law, by the way). Given the existence of the 1985 Product Liability Directive, there was no need to look for an answer to the issue of the victim’s claim against the producer in the PETL’s provisions on strict liability (art 5:101 PETL) or on fault-based undertaking liability (art 4:202 PETL). However, the need for this has emerged in recent years. As technology and business models have developed, new possibilities of harm to users of products (in the broad sense of the latter term) and third parties have emerged, which seem to call for the liability of the manufacturer or commercial intermediaries. This liability, however, cannot be based on 1985 Product Liability Directive (PLD) provisions. The question therefore arises whether the Principles adopted in 2005 would be a sufficient foundation upon which such a liability rule could be built. The article discusses some of these new damage scenarios and explains why neither the narrow approach to strict liability in PETL nor its fault-based enterprise liability rule yields satisfactory results in relation to them. It then outlines the current proposal for a new European product liability law, aiming to fill these liability gaps.
Title: The Principles of European Tort Law and Product Liability
Description:
Abstract The authors of the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) did not intend to regulate in detail the strict liability of a manufacturer for damage caused by a defect in its product.
While creating general principles of liability for damage caused otherwise than by breach of an obligation, they had no need to refer to those problems for which uniform and detailed solutions already existed in the European Communities.
Product liability was such a problem (the only one in the area of tort law, by the way).
Given the existence of the 1985 Product Liability Directive, there was no need to look for an answer to the issue of the victim’s claim against the producer in the PETL’s provisions on strict liability (art 5:101 PETL) or on fault-based undertaking liability (art 4:202 PETL).
However, the need for this has emerged in recent years.
As technology and business models have developed, new possibilities of harm to users of products (in the broad sense of the latter term) and third parties have emerged, which seem to call for the liability of the manufacturer or commercial intermediaries.
This liability, however, cannot be based on 1985 Product Liability Directive (PLD) provisions.
The question therefore arises whether the Principles adopted in 2005 would be a sufficient foundation upon which such a liability rule could be built.
The article discusses some of these new damage scenarios and explains why neither the narrow approach to strict liability in PETL nor its fault-based enterprise liability rule yields satisfactory results in relation to them.
It then outlines the current proposal for a new European product liability law, aiming to fill these liability gaps.

Related Results

‘A Hollywood Blockbuster’, or the Problems of Liability in Ukrainian Bankruptcy Proceedings
‘A Hollywood Blockbuster’, or the Problems of Liability in Ukrainian Bankruptcy Proceedings
Among the legal mechanisms directly involved in resolving the issue of debtors’ insolvency and the settlement of creditors’ monetary claims are the institutions of joint and severa...
Personal Inviolability and 'Private Law'
Personal Inviolability and 'Private Law'
The "idea of private law" has occupied a prominent place in tort theorizing over the past twenty years. To American ears, the idea has a libertarian ring, implying a realm of priva...
Is Tort a Remedial Institution?
Is Tort a Remedial Institution?
In the past 30 years, philosophers of tort have performed invaluable work in restoring the concept of a “wrong” to prominence in tort scholarship, and in building a persuasive case...
Vicarious Liability Dalam KUHP Nasional Dikaji dari Perspektif Living Law di Yogyakarta
Vicarious Liability Dalam KUHP Nasional Dikaji dari Perspektif Living Law di Yogyakarta
The National Criminal Code as the brand-new Indonesian criminal law’s face provides several fundamental changes, including provisions on the principle of material legality and vica...
What is a Tort?
What is a Tort?
<p>According to the <i>Palsgraf</i> perspective, today's dominant philosophical picture of tort law, torts are <i>relational wrongs</i>: violations of...
Public Choice and Tort Reform
Public Choice and Tort Reform
This article examines tort law and the tort reform debate through the lens of public choice. The article uses the tools of public choice to explain the development of tort law over...
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere is a monograph that argues for a fundamental reorientation of constitutional law around the realities of biospheric interdep...
Penerapan Prinsip Vicarious Liability dalam Pertanggungjawaban Perseroan Terbatas
Penerapan Prinsip Vicarious Liability dalam Pertanggungjawaban Perseroan Terbatas
AbstractA limited liability company is a legal subject capable of being responsible for the risks in carrying out its business. The principle of vicarious liability is the basis of...

Back to Top