AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Andreas Eustacchio, EUSTACCHIO
the specific policy terms and any coverage limits or exclusions. 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims Austria does not have US-style opt-out class actions, but several collective mechanisms are available and used in product liability contexts. • Injured parties generally must bring individual claims, but these can be aggregated procedurally. Austria has implemented the EU Representative Actions Directive: only recognised qualified entities (eg, consumer organisations) can bring representa - tive actions for injunctive and redress measures on behalf of consumers. • In practice, multiple product liability claims are often bundled through joinder or by assigning numerous individual claims to one claimant (the “Austrian-style class action” model). • Such co-ordinated proceedings are used where many consumers are affected by the same alleged - ly defective product or marketing conduct, allowing efficient handling of common liability and causation questions. 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims An Austrian Supreme Court case from 2021 (5Ob 152/21w) concerned an alleged design defect in a ski binding that did not release during a backward fall. The court held that there was no design defect, because in the specific fall scenario – backward fall – the non-release was consistent with the applicable technical standards and industry norms, which indi - cated that the product was free from defect. The court also rejected an instruction defect. According to the court, an average skier cannot reasonably expect a ski binding to release in every conceivable fall situ - ation. In addition, the manufacturer had provided a general warning stating that the ski–binding–boot system does not necessarily release in all situations where there is a risk of injury or death, which further supported the conclusion that the product was not defective.
Another Austrian Supreme Court case (7Ob 103/19a) concerned a one-centimetre metal fragment found in a canned chicken product, which ended up in the mouth of a 12-year-old claimant but did not cause any physical injury. The claimant, however, developed a clinically relevant obsessive–compulsive disorder (checking compulsion), for which the incident was found to be 10–15% causally responsible. The court affirmed liability, holding that such an incident can at least contribute to triggering a mental disorder of dis - ease value and does not fall outside the bounds of reasonably foreseeable consequences. A recent Austrian Supreme Court decision from 18 November 2025 (2Ob77/25z) on a defective cop - per IUD (intrauterine device) whose arm broke and led to an unintended pregnancy has been referred to the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) to clarify whether loss of earnings suffered by a woman as a result of an unintended pregnancy qualifies as “damage caused by personal injury” under Article 9 (a) of the Product Liability Directive 85/374. This is crucial for defining the boundary between recoverable personal injury loss and excluded pure economic loss in EU product liability law. In a subsequent Supreme Court decision of 27 April 2026 (4 Ob 104/25k), the court dealt with another claim arising from a defective copper IUD, involving an unintended pregnancy. The woman seeks compen - sation for the financial consequences of the unwanted pregnancy, notably the costs of the abortion and of a new contraceptive method. The court held that the decisive questions, in particular whether such follow- on losses qualify as damage caused by personal injury, overlap with the issues already referred to the CJEU in the case cited above (2Ob77/25z). It there - fore stayed the proceedings until the CJEU has ruled, underlining the broader significance of the pending reference for the treatment of consequential losses in contraceptive product.
39 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook