French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

Pursuant to Article 1245-3 (former Article 1386-4) of the Civil Code, the defect in the product refers to the concept of safety, which is assessed in the light of all the circumstances, and in particular the presentation of the product, its use and its putting into circulation. A heater presented as a “safe”, “reliable” device, and as is easy to use and only requiring a connection to a gas cylinde …

Manufacturing defect or design fault

Pursuant to Article 1245-3 (former Article 1386-4) of the Civil Code, the defect in the product refers to the concept of safety, which is assessed in the light of all the circumstances, and in particular the presentation of the product, its use and its putting into circulation. A heater presented as a “safe”, “reliable” device, and as is easy to use and only requiring a connection to a gas cylinder or tank and the pushing of a button to turn it on, after which it will function completely automatically, which subsequently explodes a mere two months after its sale when used under normal conditions and in accordance with its intended purpose, clearly does not offer the level of safety that can legitimately be expected .

According to case law, a product does not provide a level of safety that can legitimately be expected when there is an internal manufacturing defect or design fault. The manufacturer of a tractor is liable under Article 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code, even if no law makes emergency safety valves on tractors used for farming mandatory, when the safety system of its equipment is insufficient in light of what the user could legitimately expect in the event the cable were to snap . Vineyard equipment of which the driving position is so ergonomically deficient that the operator runs the risk of injury is abnormally dangerous and incurs the manufacturer's liability ipso jure . Similarly, the agricultural machine that catches fire, without any evidence of a lack of maintenance and without the upgrades recommended by the manufacturer having succeeded in resolving the design defect affecting its exhaust system, which was certainly the cause of the fire according to the expert, does not provide the safety that one might legitimately expect . However, the courts do not limit the concept of defective product to the mere finding of a design fault or manufacturing defect . Also, a defect in the product cannot result solely from the fact that another, more sophisticated product has subsequently been put into circulation . However, the provision of a substantial number of replacement devices has been interpreted as a recognition of the defective nature of the devices previously installed . In addition, claiming the existence of video and human controls during the process of manufacture and packaging is insufficient to exclude an anomaly at the manufacturing stage relative to the presence of the thermo-welded lid on a combustible oil drum or the incorrect tightening or positioning of the lid, as a technical fault or human error can never be ruled out .

The following products were deemed defective:

-  a ladder whose blocking system had failed ;

- an airbag deploying abnormally and unexpectedly while the vehicle is relatively new, stationary and in the absence of any impact ;

- an engine injector used in accordance with its purpose, which has not properly fulfilled its function thus causing the engine to fail ;

-  milk containing inhibitory substances exceeding the authorized threshold making it unfit for human and animal consumption ; or contaminated by pathogenic bacteria of the salmonella genus, which, as stated in the preamble to Commission Regulation No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, “poses a high risk to public health” ;

-  a refrigerator with a risk of short circuit, of a nature to release sufficient energy to ignite the surrounding combustible materials ;

-  a diving stabilizing jacket which, by not guaranteeing the diver's buoyancy on the surface, was the cause of his drowning ;

- a vehicle suddenly igniting under ordinary conditions of use ;

-  a fuel for stoves for domestic use which has an abnormally high level of acetone ;

-  an atrial pacing lead with a risk of breakage potentially fatal to the person in whom the pacemaker is implanted ;

-  a spring comprising a braking system with an abnormal elongation of the lower coils having caused the fire in the trailer on which it is installed  ;

-  an aerosol without a sufficiently shock-resistant casing ;

-  a cylinder of propane gas devoid of specific connections preventing the supply of an installation operating on butane gas ;

- a bicycle that combines defective construction in the production line and an unsuitable and dangerous assembling .

On the other hand, the test, whose purpose is not to ensure the diagnosis of Lyme disease, but to contribute to it in accordance with its instructions for use and the documentation issued by health authorities and learned societies, does not have an intrinsic defect within the meaning of Article 1245-3 of the Civil Code, on the grounds that it did not allow the disease to be diagnosed .  Similarly, the clarifications and recommendations issued after each accident by an aircraft manufacturer cannot be taken as an admission of liability, since reminding pilots of safety instructions or adding an audible alarm system to draw their attention to the need to check that doors are closed, as a fundamental safety measure, do not in themselves demonstrate the existence of a design fault in the door locking system .

CA Colmar, 20 April 2018, LawLex201800000998JBJ.

CA Besançon, 24 October 2017, LawLex201700001790JBJ.

 CA Nancy, 7 February 2012, LawLex201200001543JBJ.

   CA Paris, 6 March 2008, LawLex201200001620JBJ; 21 February 2008, LawLex201200001836JBJ; Chambéry, 10 March 2009, LawLex201800001017JBJ: holding liable a milk producer for a level of staphylococcus which is 370 times higher than the norm in force.

CA Lyon, 4 June 2024, LawLex202400004143JBJ.

  CA  Pau, 11 October 2011, LawLex201200001799JBJ.

  CA Bastia, 9 March 2011, LawLex201200001565JBJ.

  CA Reims, 16 February 2009, LawLex201200001848JBJ.

 CA Toulouse, 22 May 2007, LawLex20121857; CA Rouen, 9 June 2010, LawLex201200001874JBJ.

   CA Paris, 25 September 2008, LawLex201200001865JBJ.

  CA Paris, 12 September 2008, LawLex201200001866JBJ. 

   CA Poitiers, 9 September 2008, LawLex201200001923JBJ.

CA Reims, 18 June 2019, LawLex201900000859JBJ.

   CA Paris, 15 May 2006, LawLex201600000666JBJ

  Cass. 1re civ., 4 February 2015, LawLex201500000222JBJ.

CA Paris, 7 September 2020, LawLex202000002199JBJ: the assembly defect in the production line, which stems from a malfunction of the locking mechanism of the bicycle clamping device to ensure safety, combined with the design defect that constitutes the assembly of a U-shaped rod from the inside, a solution that is unsuitable and dangerous when the inner fastening point comes loose, make it possible to characterize the bicycle at issue as defective within the meaning of Articles 1245-1 et seq. of the Civil Code.

CA Versailles, 8 September 2022, LawLex2022500007404JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 2 November 2023, LawLex202300007754JBJ.

Ca Grenoble, 24 September 2019, LawLex201900001150JBJ.

  CA Paris, 10 December 2012, LawLex201200001860JBJ

CA Poitiers, 30 October 2015, LawLex201600000619JBJ, citing the last paragraph of Article 1386-4 (now Article 1245-3).

 CA Lyon, 18 January 2018, LawLex201800000176JBJ.

 CA Caen, 26 April 2018, LawLex201800000651JBJ, holding that the finding that only five oil drums had faulty lids when the ex post fact verification was carried out by the complainant is not evidence of ad hoc human intervention when a manufacturing defect can just as well be ad hoc or affect the entire batch; CA Angers, 8 January 2019, LawLex201900000033JBJ, holding that given the proper functioning of the electricity back-up units for eight years and the lack of proof of maintenance operations, even though the manufacturer recommended in its user's manual that the contact points of the contactors be inspected annually to prevent any deterioration, it has not been established that the maladjustment of the contactors constitutes a safety defect, which was the cause of the fire in the contested unit.

   CA Versailles, 15 June 2007, LawLex201200001643JBJ.

 CA Versailles, 8 June 2007, LawLex201200001647JBJ.

French Consumer Law

670. Manufacturing defect or design fault

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

670. Manufacturing defect or design fault

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise