SPAIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Xavier Moliner and Juan Martínez, Faus Moliner
Appeal Courts, or applies rules for which there is no case law of the Supreme Court. This cassa - tion appeal cannot be grounded on the assess - ment of the evidence or the determination of facts, except on obvious and immediately veri - fiable errors of fact based on the proceedings 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, taking all circumstances into account, including the time when the product was put into circulation, the presentation of the product and the use to which it could reasonably 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 circula - tion, 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 manufac - tured, imported, supplied or distributed within the context of a professional or entrepreneur - ial 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 knowl - edge existing at the time the product was put into circulation did not allow for the discovery of the existence of the defect. The producer of a part integrating a finished product shall not be liable if they prove that the defect is attributable to the design of the prod - uct 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 technical knowledge defence referred to in the foregoing. 2.13 The Impact of Regulatory Compliance on Product Liability Claims Compliance with regulatory requirements relat - ing to the development, manufacture, licens - ing, 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 product in strict com - pliance with such regulatory requirements. If this is the case, the manufacturer could invoke the ground for exoneration mentioned in the fourth bullet point of 2.12 Defences to Product Liabil- ity Claims . In addition, compliance with regulatory require - ments can be considered in the context of assessing whether a product meets legitimate
219 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook