SPAIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Xavier Moliner and Juan Martínez, Faus Moliner
of the Supreme Court. This cassation appeal cannot be grounded on the assessment of the evidence or the determination of facts, except on obvious and immediately verifiable errors of fact based on the pro - ceedings themselves. When the appeal is based on an infringement of procedural rules, it is essential to prove that the infringement has been reported at all previous instances prior to the lodging of the appeal. If the procedural infringement has produced a defect that can be remedied, it must have been requested that it be remedied in the corresponding instances. 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims The producer shall not be liable if they can prove that the product is not defective because it provides the safety that could legitimately be expected from it, tak - ing all circumstances into account, including the time when the product was put into circulation, the presen - tation of the product and the use to which it could rea - sonably be expected that the product would be put. The producer shall also not be liable if they can prove that: • they did not put the product into circulation; • it may be presumed that the defect did not exist when the product was put into circulation, given the circumstances of the case; • the product had not been manufactured for sale or for any other form of distribution with an economic purpose, nor was it manufactured, imported, sup - plied or distributed within the context of a profes - sional or entrepreneurial activity; • the defect is due to the fact that the product was elaborated in accordance with existing mandatory rules; and/or • the state of scientific and technical knowledge existing at the time the product was put into circu - lation did not allow for the discovery of the exist - ence of the defect. The producer of a part integrating a finished product shall not be liable if they prove that the defect is attrib - utable to the design of the product into which the part was integrated, or to the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the finished product.
In addition, the doctrine points out that the apparent producer shall not be liable if they can prove that they were not the one who placed the sign, brand, logo or stamp that identifies them as the apparent producer into the defective product or its packaging. In the case of medicinal products, foods or foodstuffs intended for human consumption, the producer shall not be able to invoke the state of scientific and techni - cal knowledge defence referred to above. 2.13 The Impact of Regulatory Compliance on Product Liability Claims Compliance with regulatory requirements relating to the development, manufacture, licensing, marketing and supply of a product can be used as a defence if such requirements oblige the producer to develop, manufacture, license, market and/or supply the prod - uct in strict compliance with such regulatory require - ments. If this is the case, the manufacturer could claim that the defect is due to the fact that the product was elaborated in accordance with existing mandatory rules as grounds for exoneration. In addition, compliance with regulatory requirements can be considered in the context of assessing whether a product meets legitimate safety expectations and, therefore, when determining whether a product is defective or not. These cases should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 2.14 Rules for Payment of Costs in Product Liability Claims At the end of the proceedings, the costs of the pro - ceedings are imposed on the party who has had all its pleas rejected, unless the court considers that the case posed serious de facto or de jure doubts. When the payment of costs is imposed on the party who has lost the case, that party shall pay all court fees and other incidental expenses, the fees of experts who have intervened in the proceedings, as well as the attorneys’ fees of the successful party, up to an amount that shall not exceed one-third of the total claimed in the proceedings for each of the litigants who have obtained such an award. However, this limitation shall not apply if the court declares the recklessness of the losing party.
247 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook