Duncan Fairgrieve

... The evident desire of Razians to avoid a terminology that would highlight their indebtedness ... we set on one side the potentially misleading tendencies of the Razian terminology (''normal ... As its author David Lindsay acknowledges, Australia is the only jurisdiction discussed in the ...

The paper uses the opportunity afforded by the European Commission's Third Report of the Product Liability Directive to assess the present state of product liability in Europe. It notes that despite the maximal harmonisation character of the Directive there is a risk of divergence between Member States on key issues including the core concept of defectiveness. The Commission seems at times confused (for example, as regards the relationship between defect and fault liability) and more often complacent about the risks of divergence; but this sits uneasily with the espousal of maximal harmonisation. Ultimately there may be a need for a rethinking of product liability to ensure greater clarity as regards the underlying rationale supporting strict liability. This seems unlikely to materialise in the near future and so at the very least the Commission should act to clarify some core concepts that are proving difficult to interpret for the courts.

ABSTRACT Collective redress mechanisms for consumer claims seek both to allow legal systems to accommodate mass litigation without being overwhelmed and to enable litigation to be viable where individual claims would not be economic. The article maps a number of recent reforms and reform proposals relating to consumer collective redress at national level and comments on EU developments. It notes that there is insufficient recognition of the differences between schemes geared at managing mass litigation as opposed to those aimed at facilitating otherwise non-viable claims. There are however signs that a European style of collective redress procedure is developing, which emphasize the role of public authorities and consumer organizations as gatekeepers to collective redress. The EU is unlikely to be able to impose collective redress procedures on national civil procedures, but the EU could prompt Member States to reflect on the need for national reforms. There may be limited scope for an EU mechanism to address the problem of individually non-viable consumer claims. This would however have to address certain fundamental issues such as the opt-out mechanism, cy-près distribution and funding if consumer organizations are to be encouraged to bring such actions. At a legal doctrinal level, it is interesting to note the influence of comparative studies on policy development within Member States as well as at the EU level.

The paper uses the opportunity afforded by the European Commission's Third Report of the Product Liability Directive to assess the present state of product liability in Europe. It notes that despite the maximal harmonisation character of the Directive there is a risk of divergence between Member States on key issues including the core concept of defectiveness. The Commission seems at times confused (for example, as regards the relationship between defect and fault liability) and more often complacent about the risks of divergence; but this sits uneasily with the espousal of maximal harmonisation. Ultimately there may be a need for a rethinking of product liability to ensure greater clarity as regards the underlying rationale supporting strict liability. This seems unlikely to materialise in the near future and so at the very least the Commission should act to clarify some core concepts that are proving difficult to interpret for the courts.

ABSTRACT Purpose – Almost 20 years ago one of the present authors wrote an article entitled “Product liability: a global problem”. The brief paper seeks to provide a summation of what has happened in the meantime. Design/methodology/approach – The article is a brief discussion of the issues: the first section comments on products liability outside Europe and the final part concludes with an overview of what happened in the UK and Europe. Findings – The article finds that the EU Directive's approach to strict liability has become the most common influence on law reform around the globe and that there is still much uncertainty in Europe and the USA as to what the law of product liability actually is. Originality/value – The paper illustrates how, for the foreseeable future, businesses may continue to be most concerned about product liability exposure in the USA.