Product liability in modern conditions: European reform experience

At the end of September 2022, the European Commission presented two notable documents designed to fundamentally change the current system of product liability in Europe. In part, these projects were a response to the challenges posed by digitalization and modern technology. The first document is designed to regulate liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence systems, while the second is aimed at adapting the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC to contemporary conditions. The present article sets out to review the key developments in the field of product liability in Europe. To this end, a review of the existing system of product liability in Europe is carried out. The existing product liability system is comprised of two parts: norms enshrined in national laws, as well as harmonized liability under the EU Council Directive of July 25, 1985 No. 85/374/EEC 1985. However, there is no consensus in European doctrine and practice regarding the regime of harmonized liability. While on the one hand, this regime is based on the idea of strict liability, on the other hand, there is also a reasoned opinion that the Directive factually establishes a regime of liability based on fault. On the example of German law, it is revealed that, despite the strict liability regime approved by special law, courts often focus in practice on a manufacturer’s breach of the duty of care, which once again testifies to liability based on fault. Possible factors behind the decision on the part of the European regulator to reform the existing liability system include: the increasing complexity of the goods themselves; the expansion of intermediary chains and emergence of new potential subjects of liability, including owners of aggregators; difficulties in proving the existence of a product defect and a causal link between such a defect and the resulting harm; the concept of harm in the digital age and the special role of data; providers’ liability for goods equipped with artificial intelligence technology.

1. Ahrens, H., & Spickhoff, A. (2022). Deliktsrecht [Tort Law]. Beck.

2. Aristotel. (2020). Etika. Kniga V [Ethics. Book V]. Izdatel’stvo AST [Publishing house AST].

3. Bogdanov, D. (2013). Spravedlivost’ kak osnovnoe nachalo grazhdansko-pravovoj otvetstvennosti v rossijskom i zarubezhnom prave [Justice as the main principle of civil liability in Russian and foreign law]. Prospekt.

4. Borges, G. (2016). Haftung für selbstfahrende Autos. Computer und Recht, 32(4), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.9785/cr-2016-0412

5. Calabresi, G. (1965). The decision for accidents: An approach to non-fault allocation of costs. Harvard Law Review, 78(4), 713–745. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/1268

6. Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (2010). Sravnitel’noe chastnoe parvo (T.2) [Comparative private law (Vol. 2)]. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [International relationships].

7. Fairgrieve, D. (2005). L’Exception française? The French law of product liability. In D. Fairgrieve (Ed.), Product liability in comparative perspective (pp. 84–99). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493850.007

8. Faure, M., & Li, S. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and (compulsory) insurance. Journal of European Tort Law, 13(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2022-0001

9. Kötz, H. (1991). Ist die Produkthaftung eine vom Verschulden unabhängige Haftung [Is product liability a liability independent of fault]? In B. Pfister & M. Will. (Eds.), Festschrift für Werner Lorenz (pp.109–121). Tübingen: mohr.

10. Koziol, H. (2016). Gibkaya sistema — zolotaya seredina v zakonodatel’stve i doktrine [The flexible system — the happy medium in legislation and theory]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil law review], 16(6), 246–267.

11. Koziol, H. (2021). Obezlichivaetsya li otzenka neostorozhnosti v institute vozmeshcheniya vreda [Is the necessity assessment at the institute of harmful recovery]? Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil law review], 21(2), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-2-217-244

12. Kramer, E. (2020). Nachalo obshchego vsem vmeneniya v deliktnom i dogovornom prave [The principle of objective imputation in tort and contract law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil law review], 20(1), 236– 262. https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2020-20-1-236-262

13. Kratenko, M. (2022). Institut otvetstvennosti za vred, prichinennyj defektnoj produkciej, v zakonodatel’stve Rossii: bol’shoj potencial ili klubok protivorechij [Product liability rules in Russian legislation: Great potential or mass of contradictions]? Zakon [Statute], 11, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2022-19-11-176-187

14. Lenze, S. (2005). German product liability law: between European Directives, American Restatements and common sense. In Product liability in comparative perspective (pp. 100–125). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493850.008

15. Markelova, A. (2021). Civil liability of taxi-aggregation companies: Between contract and tort law. Digital Law Journal, 2(4), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-4-8-19

16. Markesinis, B.S., & Unberath, H. (2002). The German law of torts: A comparative treatise (4th ed.). Hart Publishing.

17. Nasibullina, I. (2020). Prichinno-sledstvennaya svyaz’: kamen’ pretknoveniya v sporah s proizvoditelem i prodavcom defektnyh tovarov [Causation: A deal breaker in disputes over defective products]. Zakon [Statute], 3. 57–68.

18. Nikitenko, S. (2023). Koncepcii deliktnoj otvetstvennosti za vred, prichinennyj sistemami iskusstvennogo intellekta [Concepts of tort liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence systems]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii [The Herald of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation], 1, 156–174. https://doi.org/10.37239/2500-2643-2022-18-1-156-174

19. Ripstein, A. (2004). The division of responsibility and the Law of Tort. Fordham Law Review, 72(5), 1811–1844. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol72/iss5/21

20. Rolz, Dzh. (1995). Teoriya spravedlivosti [Theory of justice]. Izdatel’stvo Novosibirskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta [Novosibirsk State University Publishing House].

21. Selbst, A. (2020). Negligence and AI’s human users. Boston University Law Review, 100(4), 1315–1376.

22. Sharkley, C. (2022). Products liability in the digital age: Online platforms as “cheapest cost avoiders”. Hastings Law Journal, 73(5), 1327–1352.

23. Shavell, S. (1980). Strict liability versus negligence. Journal of Legal Studies, 9(1),1–25.

24. Shavell, S. (2003). Economic analysis of accident law. SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.367800

25. Stapleton, J. (1996). Product liability. Butterworths.

26. Stepanov, S. (2021a). Deconstruction of the legal personhood of artificial intelligence. Digital Law Journal, 2(2), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-2-14-30

27. Stepanov, S. (2021b). Sovremennye teorii protivopravnosti: shvejtsarskij podkhod [Modern theories of wrongfulness: The Swiss approach]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Сivil law review], 21(1), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2021-21-1-219-253

28. Stepanov, S. (2023). Balans interesov storon v deliktnom prave [Balance of parties’ interests in tort law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil law review], 23(4), 90–126. https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2023-23-4-90-126

29. Suvorov, E. (2019). Nekotorye problemy elektronnoj torgovli: k voprosu ob otvetstvennosti vladel’cev agregatorov pered potrebitelyami [Some problems of e-commerce: On the question of aggregator owners’ liability to customers]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii [The Herald of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation], 9, 57–67.

30. Tololaeva, N. (2020). Passivnye solidarnye obyazatel’stva: rossijskij podhod i kontinental’no-evropejskaya tradiciya [Passive solidary obligations: Russian approach and continental European tradition]. Statut [Statute].

31. Wagner, G. (2017). Produkthaftung für autonome Systeme. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 217(6), 708–765. https://doi.org/10.1628/000389917X15126388934364

32. Wagner, G. (2022). Liability rules for the digital age: Aiming for the Brussels effect. Journal of European Tort Law, 13(3), 191–243. https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2022-0012

33. Wagner, G. (2024). Digitale Ordnungspolitik — Haftung und Verantwortung. List Forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik, 50, 77–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41025-022-00237-8

34. Whittaker, S. (1985). The EEC Directive on Product Liability. Yearbook of European Law, 5(1), 233–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/5.1.233