| Abstract [eng] |
This master thesis analyses conditions of the strict civil liability of the producer for the damage caused by defective products. The main attention is paid to the analysis and interpretation of provisions of Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products. Whereas practise of European Court of Justice is not very rich regarding these issues and there is no any judicial practise of Lithuanian Supreme Court, judicial practise of foreign countries, such as United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and others, are of significant importance seeking the aims of this master thesis. To disclose properly the issue of defectiveness, attention is also drawn in the analysis of legal doctrine of theorists of the Europe counties as well as authors of United States of America. On the one hand, equal interpretation and application of conditions of the strict liability of producer is a guarantee of consumers’ rights and helps to ensure the same degree of protection of the consumers in the Member States. On the other hand, unequal application of these conditions concerns not only economic interests of the producers themselves but also affects competitive structure and free movement of goods within the common market. Thus this master thesis discloses the main problems found in the concepts of defect, damage and causation in this liability, concentrating on the meaning of defectiveness and its criterions. The Directive introduce strict liability regime for the damage caused by defective products. As a result, the defectiveness of product, not the conduct of the producer (such as degree of care taken, or not taken), is the basis for strict liability. Difficulties for courts to determine the defectiveness in certain cases, especially associated with construction defects, lead to decision that the definition of a defective product as one whose safety is not such as a person is entitled to expect is not sufficient and induce courts to undertake risk – benefit analysis when assessing what a person is generally entitled to expect. But the imposition of a heavy demand on the consumer to prove the exact cause of the defect makes the cause of action indistinguishable from the system based on negligence and frustrates the purpose of the Directive. |
