Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Brussels Dubai Frankfurt London Madrid Milan Munich New Delhi New York Paris Singapore Tokyo
In a case before the District Court of Bonn3, the claimant was said to have consumed a 400g bag of liquorice, daily, from November 2002 to February 2003. In February 2003, she collapsed and underwent hospital treatment for heart rhythm disturbances. A subsequent letter from the doctor who treated her attributed the heart problems to her prolonged consumption of liquorice. She sought damages from the manufacturer, on the basis of a failure to warn of the health consequences of liquorice consumption. The risks, arising from increased blood pressure due to the presence of glycerine, were said to be well-known in professional circles but not to the general public. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the claimant could not establish her case either in tort or under the implementing legislation of the Directive. The court did not need to consider whether the claimant had in fact consumed the alleged amount of liquorice or whether the liquorice was a cause of the heart rhythm disturbances, because the product was not defective, either in tort or under the Directive. There was no construction failure and no failure to warn. Although a manufacturer was obliged to warn of dangers and risks during normal conditions of use, it was not obliged to warn of possible risks arising from excessive consumption. The French Supreme Court heard a claim in respect of an alleged side-effect of dermatitis arising as a result of taking a drug for treatment of gout4. The claimant alleged that the product was necessarily defective as a result. The French Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court found in the claimant's favour, inferring the defect from the damage suffered. The defendants appealed to the French Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as the defective nature of the drug had not been established and held that it was not sufficient to show simply that a feature of the drug was dangerous. The court held that all the circumstances had to be taken into consideration, including what the public were legitimately entitled to expect. A drug is not ipso facto defective as a result of a side-effect.
proven. The French Supreme Court noted that the aetiology of MS was unknown and that there were no scientific studies or expert reports to support a suggestion that there was a connection between the vaccinations and the MS.
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [2001] 3 All ER 289 Rb. Zwolle 24 April 2002, Praktijkgids 2002, 5921 19 April 2004, District Court of Bonn, 9 0 603/03 (Haribo) Cour de Cassation, Premier Civ., 1 April 2005 21.11.96, Civ. Namur, 5e. Ch. [2000] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 280 Tribunal de Grande Instance, Aix-en-Provence, 2 October 2001, D.2001.IR.3092 Cour de Cassation, Premier Civ, 23 September 2003, Bull. C.V. 1, no 188 BGH, 9.5.95, VI ZR 158/94 Case C-203/99 RB Amsterdam 3 February 1999, NJ 1999 621 Case C-203/99 Case C-127/04
Contacts
Arundel McDougall, Partner Tel: +44 (0)20 7859 1095 Email: arundel.mcdougall@ashurst.com Andy McGregor, Solicitor Tel: +44 (0)20 7859 2692 Email: andy.mcgregor@ashurst.com