On July 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in Case III CZP 34/20 concerning the award of monetary compensation to injured parties whose harm resulted from contact with a hazardous product. This resolution clarifies both the scope of manufacturer liability and the allocation of the burden of proof in cases involving hazardous products.
Producer responsibility
Producer liability for hazardous products is regulated in Polish law primarily by the Act on Special Conditions of Liability for Damage Caused by Hazardous Products and the provisions of the Civil Code regarding liability for damage. A characteristic of this liability is its objective nature, meaning that proof of the producer's fault is not required.
Demonstrating a causal relationship
It is crucial to demonstrate a causal link between the product and the damage, which allows the injured party to pursue claims more effectively than through traditional tort liability. The Supreme Court has unequivocally confirmed that the injured party is entitled to compensation not only for property damage but also for compensation for the harm suffered.
Amount of compensation
The amount of compensation should be determined individually and take into account factors such as the intensity and duration of suffering, the impact of the damage on the daily life of the injured party, health and mental consequences, and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the damage.
Hazardous properties of the product
The resolution also clarifies that in cases seeking compensation for damages resulting from a dangerous product, the injured party must demonstrate that the damage resulted from the product's dangerous properties. This is known as the burden of proof regarding the cause of the damage, which in practice requires the submission of technical documentation for the product, an expert opinion on product safety, and testimonies from witnesses or consumers who encountered the product. The manufacturer, however, may argue that the product was not dangerous, that the damage resulted from improper use of the product, or that the injured party failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. Such arguments can limit or exclude the manufacturer's liability; however, in the case of an objectively dangerous product, the burden of demonstrating safety rests with the manufacturer.
Proving the source of the damage
As the Supreme Court rightly noted in the resolution in question , "It is crucial to prove that the source of the damage was the unexpected, dangerous operation of a normally used product, which is equivalent to demonstrating that the cause of the damage was the product itself, which had a dangerous property (e.g., a bottle in a state threatening to explode), and not circumstances external to it, which sufficiently justifies the manufacturer's liability for damages. However, there is no basis to assume that the injured party must always demonstrate the specific cause (imperfection, defect) that caused the dangerous operation."
The Supreme Court's resolution of July 6, 2021, has significant consequences for both consumers and businesses. For consumers, it means they can seek redress for harm more directly, without having to prove the manufacturer's fault, simplifying the procedure and increasing the chances of obtaining compensation. For manufacturers, it signals the need to implement rigorous quality control procedures and document product safety to effectively defend themselves in the event of claims.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of August 27, 2025.
Author / Editor of the series:
