Cour de cassation:

Given that the Etablissements Valentin (the company) criticises the judgment under attack (Nancy, 27 September 1995) for holding it liable for the injury suffered by M. Royer while he was cutting wood with a circular saw of the company’s manufacture whereas, according to the company, the machine had been granted a certificate of approval such as is given to dangerous machinery and their protective devices only after checking that they are conformable to the applicable regulations, so that in stating that the certificate did not show that the machine was in conformity with the specifications referred to in the regulation (R. 233-52 of the Labour Code, as confirmed in the decree of 20 March 1979) the court violated that text; furthermore, that it violated article 455 of the New Code of Civil Procedure in criticising the design for keeping the cover closed by means of a metal arm with an aperture designed to fit over the nut securing the screw without making any reference to the company’s contention that this system had been required by the National Institute for Research into Safety so that the user should be able to open the cover for maintenance purposes without entirely dismantling the screws with the attendant risk of losing them;

But given that the court of appeal was right to hold that a manufacturer is not wholly exonerated by the fact that the machine has been certified as technically sound and that in so holding it was implicitly replying to the company’s arguments and was thus justified in holding that the company was at fault in adopting a device which could not prevent the cover suddenly springing open, especially if the nut became loose;

From which it follows that the application for review is unfounded;

For these reasons:

DISMISSES the application.

This note on subsequent developments will be translated into English at a later stage and reflects the legal situation as of October 2004 and will be translated into English at a later stage.

Civ 1, 27 janvier 1998: Although the Cour de cassation has not been led to make a decision since on this subject, this case law seems to remain current notwithstanding the later integration (Law of the 19 May 1998), in the Code civil, of the European Directive on liability for defective products (exemption from liability would, a priori, only apply if this authorisation was analysed as an "imperative rule of the legislative or regulatory order", in accordance with article 1386-11-5E of the Code civil).

Translation by Raymond Youngs

Back to top

This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.