In front of me sits Leonie, mother of four-year-old Isa. Leonie is crying. She feels terribly guilty. I try to reassure her, but it is difficult. Because it is starting to get colder at night, Leonie put a warm jug in her daughter's bed a while ago. The hot water bottle is new and has never been used. Therefore, Leonie checked extra carefully that the locking mechanism was working. All seemed well.
Until Leonie was startled by a screaming Isa. The pitcher turned out not to be properly sealed after all, allowing the red-hot water to spill out, into Isa's bed. As a result, the toddler suffered severe burns: on her arm, legs and belly.
Product Liability
This is a fictional example. But I see the guilt, emotion and far-reaching consequences of an accident almost every day. Not long ago, I made the transition from an international firm to a Dutch firm (with a international network): Beer advocaten. The cases that come into our law firm are important and each one distressing. One of my areas of interest within personal injury is product liability. A manufacturer of a product may be liable for damages caused by a defect in that product. Like the pitcher in Leonie and Isa's case.
Legal framework
The law stipulates that a product is defective if it does not provide the safety one may expect (Art. 6:185 of the Civil Code). When assessing the defectiveness of a product, “all circumstances” must be considered - the favorite “catch all” understanding of the legal world. In particular, look at:
- the presentation of the product, such as the packaging and instruction manuals, and any warnings included therein;
- the reasonably foreseeable use of the product. A producer must consider that his product might be used in a different way than he envisioned;
- the time the product was put into circulation (the “state of the art” - not to be confused with the developmental risk defense of Art. 6:185(1)(e) BW).
Safety
In the example of the pitcher, it seems that the product, the pitcher, does not provide the safety one might expect. After all, the closing mechanism does not appear to work properly. Especially in the case of a pitcher, it has a crucial task: to ensure that the red-hot water stays in the pitcher.
Upon investigation, it could be determined that there was a manufacturing defect in a particular batch of the pitchers - which indeed caused the closing mechanisms not to close correctly.
In that case, the producer of the jug could be held liable for the damages Isa suffered as a result of the defective jug. In addition, under the Commodities Act and the General Product Safety Act Decree, the manufacturer may be required to conduct a recall of the product to prevent other accidents from occurring as well.
Statute of limitations and lapse
Please note that the statute of limitations and expiration regime in product liability differs from the statute of limitations and expiration regime for tort claims. A claim based on product liability anniversary after three years (in a tort claim, that period is five years).
More importantly, a product liability claim expires after the expiration of ten years after the manufacturer put the product into circulation. You cannot interrupt an expiration period. This means that after ten years after the product was put into circulation, a product liability claim has lapsed (disappeared). What remains is possibly a claim in tort.
Personal injury lawyer
As a personal injury lawyer, you stand firmly in society with both feet. The cases are real, and they have a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people. People like you and me, who didn't choose to end up in the misery they are in. I am committed to the Leonies and the Isa's of this world to help them get justice.
If you have questions about this blog, please contact the author, Laura-Jean van de Ven.
The names of the characters in this blog are fictitious.