Risk Regulation through Liability Allocation: Transnational Product Liability and the Role of Certification

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This article studies the recent European developments concerning product liability in the aviation domain. Particularly the landmark judgment in Überlingen Manufacturers provided new insights on the definition of product defects (manufacturing, design and warning defects) and the availability of liability defences (state of the art defence and regulatory compliance). The article finds that the judgment both enhances manufacturers’ liability risks, by providing a wide interpretation of product defects, and limits the risk by accepting the regulatory compliance defence for technologies certified to a mandatory standard. The article compares US and EU product liability law, concluding that the outcome of the case would likely have been similar under both regimes. The article highlights that product liability must be considered beyond individual cases, as an element of systemic risk regulation. This necessitates that the link between ownership of design choices, mandatory certification and legal liability be addressed more purposefully. The article identifies that currently the regulatory compliance defence may create a legal gap in this respect: standard-setters and certifiers are responsible for product design choices, but cannot be held legally accountable through liability. The article concludes with suggestions for adapting the legal framework to improve liability allocation through product liability.
LanguageEnglish
Pages107-136
JournalAir & Space Law
Volume42
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

producer liability
liability
certification
regulation
product design
air traffic
manufacturing
EU
regime
interpretation
Law

Cite this

@article{fd9a24fa2c75427b9148c222a1ce9eff,
title = "Risk Regulation through Liability Allocation: Transnational Product Liability and the Role of Certification",
abstract = "This article studies the recent European developments concerning product liability in the aviation domain. Particularly the landmark judgment in {\"U}berlingen Manufacturers provided new insights on the definition of product defects (manufacturing, design and warning defects) and the availability of liability defences (state of the art defence and regulatory compliance). The article finds that the judgment both enhances manufacturers’ liability risks, by providing a wide interpretation of product defects, and limits the risk by accepting the regulatory compliance defence for technologies certified to a mandatory standard. The article compares US and EU product liability law, concluding that the outcome of the case would likely have been similar under both regimes. The article highlights that product liability must be considered beyond individual cases, as an element of systemic risk regulation. This necessitates that the link between ownership of design choices, mandatory certification and legal liability be addressed more purposefully. The article identifies that currently the regulatory compliance defence may create a legal gap in this respect: standard-setters and certifiers are responsible for product design choices, but cannot be held legally accountable through liability. The article concludes with suggestions for adapting the legal framework to improve liability allocation through product liability.",
author = "H. Schebesta",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "107--136",
journal = "Air & Space Law",
issn = "0927-3379",
publisher = "Aspen Publishers",
number = "2",

}

Risk Regulation through Liability Allocation: Transnational Product Liability and the Role of Certification. / Schebesta, H.

In: Air & Space Law , Vol. 42, No. 2, 2017, p. 107-136.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk Regulation through Liability Allocation: Transnational Product Liability and the Role of Certification

AU - Schebesta, H.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This article studies the recent European developments concerning product liability in the aviation domain. Particularly the landmark judgment in Überlingen Manufacturers provided new insights on the definition of product defects (manufacturing, design and warning defects) and the availability of liability defences (state of the art defence and regulatory compliance). The article finds that the judgment both enhances manufacturers’ liability risks, by providing a wide interpretation of product defects, and limits the risk by accepting the regulatory compliance defence for technologies certified to a mandatory standard. The article compares US and EU product liability law, concluding that the outcome of the case would likely have been similar under both regimes. The article highlights that product liability must be considered beyond individual cases, as an element of systemic risk regulation. This necessitates that the link between ownership of design choices, mandatory certification and legal liability be addressed more purposefully. The article identifies that currently the regulatory compliance defence may create a legal gap in this respect: standard-setters and certifiers are responsible for product design choices, but cannot be held legally accountable through liability. The article concludes with suggestions for adapting the legal framework to improve liability allocation through product liability.

AB - This article studies the recent European developments concerning product liability in the aviation domain. Particularly the landmark judgment in Überlingen Manufacturers provided new insights on the definition of product defects (manufacturing, design and warning defects) and the availability of liability defences (state of the art defence and regulatory compliance). The article finds that the judgment both enhances manufacturers’ liability risks, by providing a wide interpretation of product defects, and limits the risk by accepting the regulatory compliance defence for technologies certified to a mandatory standard. The article compares US and EU product liability law, concluding that the outcome of the case would likely have been similar under both regimes. The article highlights that product liability must be considered beyond individual cases, as an element of systemic risk regulation. This necessitates that the link between ownership of design choices, mandatory certification and legal liability be addressed more purposefully. The article identifies that currently the regulatory compliance defence may create a legal gap in this respect: standard-setters and certifiers are responsible for product design choices, but cannot be held legally accountable through liability. The article concludes with suggestions for adapting the legal framework to improve liability allocation through product liability.

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 107

EP - 136

JO - Air & Space Law

T2 - Air & Space Law

JF - Air & Space Law

SN - 0927-3379

IS - 2

ER -