DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Heidi Bloch, Rasmus Tommerup and Rasmus Estrup, Kennedys
closure order may lead to adverse inferences being drawn. Similarly, if a party wishes to dis - close documents held by a non-party, the court may impose disclosure based on the relevance of the documents to the case, unless the non- party is exempt from providing testimony on the content of the documents. Non-compliance may result in sanctions similar to those for failing to comply with a court appearance, including fines or imprisonment. 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases In Denmark, the decision to involve expert evi - dence typically rests with the parties, though the court may reject such evidence if it deems it unnecessary, either upon request or at its own discretion. Court-appointed experts, rather than party-appointed experts or witnesses, are more commonly relied upon, providing written state - ments and court explanations based on queries posed by the parties. Pre-proceeding statements acquired by the parties are generally admissible, with the opposing party granted similar access post-commencement. Parties may also, with court approval and mutual agreement, secure their own expert statements (party-appointed experts) after proceedings have begun. 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases Under the Danish Product Liability Act, produc - ers bear a strict liability for damage resulting from defects in their products. To seek compensation for incurred damage, claimants must establish the existence of the inflicted damage, a defect, and the causal link between the defect and the damage. Consequently, there’s no requirement for the claimant to prove negligence or fault on the part of the producer.
Under product liability principles established through case law, a presumption of negligence applies. Upon the claimant proving the existence of a defect, the burden of proof shifts to the pro - ducer to prove that the defect is not a result of their negligence. Both the Product Liability Act and case law- derived product liability principles impose a pre - sumption of negligence on intermediaries. Con - sequently, the intermediary may be held liable for injury or damage resulting from a defective product unless it can demonstrate lack of inten - tionality or negligence. Danish law do not have formal rules concern - ing the assessment of evidence by courts and the requisite level of proof. Therefore, in each instance, the court must assess the evidence presented and determine whether the claimant has met the burden of proof. Additionally, the court is not obligated to adhere to expert evi - dence. 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought Product liability cases, irrespective of the dis - puted claim’s value, are adjudicated in Danish civil courts, including district courts, the Mari - time and Commercial Court, High Courts, the Supreme Court, and, if parties have mutually agreed, in arbitration. Generally, there are no specific procedural requirements for such cases, and jury hearings are not available for product liability cases, as juries are exclusively involved in specific criminal cases.
65
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook