Cour de Cassation — Tort Law — Producer's liability
| Date | Citation | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 24.01.2006 | Bull.civ. 2006 I no. 33 p. 31 First Civil Chamber, (pourvoi no. 03-19,534) | |
| 28.11.2001 | Bull. Civ. 2001 III no. 137 p. 106 00-13.559 Case SA Haironville v. A.M. Prudence Subsequent developments |
|
| 05.01.1999 | Bull. Civ. I, no. 6, p. 3 Case Transports Norbert Dentressangle v. Thermo King Subsequent developments |
The manufacturer who gives a guarantee to a remote purchaser does not thereby enter into a contract of sale subject to the Vienna Convention. |
| 28.04.1998 | Bull. Civ. I, no. 158, p. 104 Case Mme X. v. Centre régional de transfusion sanguine Subsequent developments |
The primary victim of transfusion with infected blood is not barred from civil suit by applying to the Compensation Fund. In the light of the (unimplemented) Directive, the supplier of infected blood is strictly liable to secondary victims as well as to the primary recipients of their product. |
| 03.03.1998 | Bull. Civ. I, no. 95 p. 63 Case Scovazzo v. Les Laboratoires Léo Subsequent developments |
Pharmaceutical companies are as liable as any other producer for dangerous defects in their products. |
| 03.02.1998 | D. 1998, 455 95-18.602 Case Brincat v. Société Val Agriet Subsequent developments |
|
| 27.01.1998 | Bull. Civ. 1998 I no. 33 p. 21 Case Royer v. Etablissements Valentin Subsequent developments |
It is no defence to the manufacturer of a machine with a design defect that it has been authoritatively certified as safe. |
| 16.12.1997 | Bull. Civ. 1997.I. no. 373, p. 253 (95-19119) Case Sedmeo v. Alke Gas Infrarood Subsequent Development | The Hague Convention on the law applicable in product liability cases applies only where the claim is non-contractual, i.e. in tort. |
| 09.07.1996 | D.1996, 610 Case Association pour la gestion du poste de transfusion sanguine v. Mme X. Subsequent developments |
The external cause which alone exonerates the supplier of a dangerously defective product (here blood) is not satisfied by the fact that the defect is undetectable nor by the fact that the authorities have not warned the public of the risk of contamination. The victim of transfusion with infected blood who has accepted an offer from the Compensation Fund in full settlement of her claim for moral damage is not barred from civil suit but cannot claim further compensation under that head. |
| 09.07.1996 | D.1996, 611 Case Consorts X v. Groupe des assurances nationals Subsequent developments |
The liability of the supplier of blood is strict and the development risks defence contained in the (unimplemented) Directive is inapplicable since it is not mandatory for member states, but optional. |
| 20.06.1995 | Bull. Civ. I no. 277, p. 192 (93-15.948) Case S.M.M.I.G. v. Beaufils Subsequent developments |
|
| 17.01.1995 | Bull. Civ. 1995 I no. 43 JCP 1995.I.3853 D.1995.350 (93-13.075) Case Planet Wattohm v. CPAM Morbihan Subsequent developments |
|
| 09.10.1991 | Bull. Civ. 1991 I no. 259 p. 171 Case Evrard v. Dimatal Subsequent developments |
The manufacturer of a defectively designed machine remains liable to an injured claimant at fault in using it unless the fault was the sole cause of the injury. |
| 12.07.1991 | D.1991.549 Case Besse v. Protois Subsequent developments |
|
| 11.06.1991 | Bull. Civ. I, no. 201, p. 132 Case Houziaux-Verkaemer v. Société Zeebrugge Subsequent developments |
The seller’s safety obligation is not subject to the brief prescription period laid down by the Code civil for claims based on vice caché. |
| 14.05.1991 | D.1991.449 JCP 1991.II.21763 Case Baucheron v. Société Minit France Subsequent developments |
|
| 20.03.1989 | D.1989, 381 Case Société Thomson-Brandt v. Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Subsequent developments |
The seller’s obligation is not to supply goods which operate properly but to supply goods which are not defective and dangerous to person or property; this obligation is owed to the buyer, not to injured bystanders, who must sue in tort. |
| 30.05.1988 | Bull. Civ. 1998 II no. 240 p. 130 (86-14.325) Case Société de distribution v. Groupe des assurance mutuelles Subsequent developments |
|
| 07.02.1986 | Bull. Civ. 1986 Ass. No. 2 p. 2 (83-14.631) Case SA Produits Céramiques de l'Anjou v. SCI Asnières Normanie Subsequent developments |
|
| 20.07.1981 | JCP 1982.19848 Case Dame Pouyanne v. Société anonyme Volcker Subsequent developments |
It is for the gardien (of the structure) of a thing which causes damage to show that the harm was due to an external force. |
| 25.06.1980 | Bull. Civ. 1980 Com. No.276 (78-13.532) Case Société Fa WH Tusveld v. SA Sodios, Le Corre Subsequent developments |
|
| 22.11.1978 | JCP 1979.19139 Case Société La Quinoléine v. Maclet Subsequent developments |
A seller who fails to warn that the product may cause damage in certain circumstances may be guilty of a faute lourde which debars him from relying on an exclusion clause. |
| 10.12.1975 | Bull. Civ. 1975 III No. 372 p. 282 (74-12.667) Case Comptoir Tuilier du Nord v. Société Nau Frères SA Subsequent developments |