Main Structures of Product Liability in German Private and Criminal Law

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Author: Frank Peter Schuster
• Citation: (2009) 20 Stell LR 426
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Pages: 426-453
• Date: 16 August 2019

426

MAIN STRUCTURES OF PRODUCT LIABILITY

IN GERMAN PRIVATE AND CRIMINAL LAW

Frank Peter Schuster

Ass iur Mag iur Dr iur

Akademischer Rat, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz,

Rechtsanwalt, Wiesbaden*

1 Introduction

It often ha s to be determ ined whether a per son who creates a pro duct and

brings it into circulation is liable for damage if it is defective. The origins

of th is form of liability can be t raced to the rise of mass production at the

beginning of the 20 th century, a nd is connect ed with leadi ng cases such as

MacPherson v Buick Motors Co,1 Donoghue v Stevenson2 a nd the later

“Hühnerpest” (bird u) decision3 of the German Federal Supreme Court.

With the liberation of world trade, the consume r constantly encounters goods

that are not manufactured in domestic locations, regardless of whet her he lives

in a developed, newly industr ialized or developing count ry. Cross-national

discussion can ther efore be of considerable pract ical relevance. Furthermore,

the risk of liability in different countries is highly important for business

management and i nsurance reasons,4 as even slight divergences i n detail can

result in unfair competit ion, which necessitates an i nternational adjustment.

An essential step in the direction of international harmonizat ion has been

taken at the European level with the (rather b elated)5 implementation

of Di rective 85/374/EEC (1985)6 (“the Products Liability Directive”)

in all member st ates.7 It has also been taken as a model by a number of

non-member c ountries, especially in the Asia-Pacic region.8 I n South

Africa, section 61 of the new Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which

comes into effect in October 2010, will b ring about major change i n product

* The author is gratef ul to Ashling H Hea ney for assistance i n revising the manu script

1 111 NE 1050 (NY CA 1916)

2 [1932] AC 562

3 BGHZ 51, 91 The abbreviation s BGHZ a nd BGHSt denote deci sions of t he Germa n Federal Supreme

Court in civ il and crimina l matters, respe ctively RG is the abbreviation for the fo rmer Supreme Cour t of

the Germa n Empire

4 Cf Cavaliere “Produc t Liability in the E uropean Union: Co mpensation and De terrence Issu es” 2004 (18)

European Jou rnal of Law and Econ omics 299 304 et seq

5 Cf EU Commission Gree n Paper: Liability for Defe ctive Products (1999) 34 et seq

6 Directive on the Ap proximation of th e Laws, Regulatio ns and Admini strative Provisi ons of the Member

States Conce rning Liabilit y for Defective Product s

7 Cf Oechsler “Einleitu ng zu m Produ kthaftung sgesetz” in Staudinge r (ed) Kommentar zum BGB

Unerlaubte Handlungen 2, Pro dukthaftung (2009) nos 66 et seq D irective 99/34/EEC ad ded prim ary

agricult ural products and game products to the scope of the Products Liability Direc tive In 1990 Germany

incorpor ated the latter D irective into dome stic law France did the same i n 1998

8 Eg Australi a, Japan and So uth-Korea Cf EU Commission Green Pa per 36 et seq; Kellam & Nottage

“European isation of Product Lia bility in the Asia- Pacific Region: A Pr eliminary Em pirical Benchma rk”

2008 Journal o f Consumer Policy 217 220

(2009) 20 Stell LR 426

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

liability laws.9 In Europe t he ordinary law of d elict (tort), however, is still

left to the national legislators and courts, and varies bet ween the member

states.10 It n aturally also applies to producers and is st ill applicable apart

from the national implementations of the Products Liabilit y Directive.11 The

coexistence of two legal frameworks for producer liability might well hamper

legal certainty in practice.12 At least the new Rome I I Regulation,13 which

applies from 11 January 2009,14 attempts to provide clarity on the principles

of conict of laws.

So an international discou rse still requires special reports on the respective

national laws – even in Europe.15 This ar ticle will describe the situation in

Germany, a civil law c ountry, which is not only the largest economy in the

European Union, but which also, since the late 19th century, has evolved

into a “law-exporting nation”16 which inuences the legal order of other

jurisdictions.17 Usually, when talking about product liability, the focus is on

possible civil clai ms, although sometimes (par ticularly i n cases regarding

personal injuries) parallel cri minal proceedings against a manager or an

employee may be brought and may even result i n a conviction, which can

severely damage a corporate image.18 In addition, concurrent quasi-criminal

sanctions can str ike the company itself. From the injured consumer’s point of

view, criminal pre-tr ial investigations conducted by the state will constitute a

9 In the case of Wagener v Pharmacare Ltd; Cuttings v Pharma care Ltd 2003 4 SA 285 (SCA), the Supreme

Court of Appeal refused to recognise that prod uct liabilit y is str ict in S outh Afric an law of delict See

furthe r Loubser “Law of Delict” in Van der Merwe & D u Plessis (eds) Introd uction to the Law of South

Africa (200 4) 275 325 et seq The court commented that if str ict liabilit y should be i mposed, it was the

legislatur e that had to do it In 20 08 the South Afric an parliament act ually decided to d o so

10 The legal system s of the member states differ much more th an eg the legal systems of the states in the US

There exists not only a fu ndamental differ ence between the common law and the co ntinental civil law but

also divergen ces between the civil law systems Cf Koziol “Comparat ive Law – A Must in th e European

Union: Demonst rated by Tort Law as an Exa mple” 2007 (1) Journal of Tort Law Ar t 5

11 Art 13 of the Pr oducts Liability D irective

12 EU Commissio n Green Paper 11

13 EC Regulatio n 864/2007/EC on the Law Ap plicable to Non-Cont ractual Obligat ions

14 Cf Hartl ey “Choice of Law for No n-Contract ual Liability: S elected Problems under the Rome II

Regulation” 20 08 (57) ICLQ 899 902 et seq; Kadner Grazi ano “The Law Applicable to Pr oduct Liability:

The Pres ent State of the Law in Europe and Current P roposals for R eform” 2005 (54) ICLQ 475 et seq;

Kadner Graz iano “Das auf außervert ragliche Schuldverhält nisse anzuwende nde Recht nach Inkraftt reten

der Rome II-Verordnung” 2009 (73) Rabels Ze itschrift für ausl ändisches und inter nationales Priv atrecht

1 38 et seq; Junker “Die Rom II-Verordn ung: Neues Interna tionales Delikt srecht auf europäis cher

Grundl age” 2007 Neue Juris tische Wochenschr ift 3675 3678 et seq For a US perspect ive, see Weintraub

“The Choice-of-Law Rules of the Eu ropean Community Regul ation on the Law Applicable to Non-

Contract ual Oblig ations: Si mple and Predict able, Cons equences-Based , or Neither?” 2008 (43) Texas

Internati onal Law Journal 401 et se q

15 Howells “Is Europea n P roduct Liability Har monised?” in Koziol & Schulze (eds) Tort Law of the

European Community (2008) 121 133 For a gener al compar ative overvie w of the global sit uation, se e

Wand t Inter nationale P rodukthaftu ng (1995) 47-191; Fai rgrieve Pro duct Liabilit y in Compar ative

Perspective (2005) 221-334; Reimann “Liabi lity for Defect ive Products at the Beginni ng of the Twenty-

First Cent ury: Emergen ce of a Worldwide Sta ndard?” 2003 (51) Americ an Journal of Comparative La w

751-838

16 Krey Deutsche s Str afrecht Allgemeiner Teil – Teil I / German Crimin al Law General Part – Part I

(Lehrbuch i n Deutsch und Englis ch / Textbook in German a nd English) (2002) preface

17 Eg Japan, South -Korea, ROC (Taiwan) and Greec e for private law, Spain and Lati n America for crim inal

law

18 Colussi Pr oduzentenkr iminalität un d strafrecht liche Verantwor tung (2003) 75 et s eq; Vogel

“Verbrauchersc hutz durch straf rechtliche Produ kthaftu ng” 1990 Goltdammers Ar chiv für Strafr echt 241

255

MAIN STRUCTURES OF PRODUCT LIABILITY 427

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd