br> Our legal advice in this Worst- Case scenario aims at the most effective possible defence of such claims whether out of court or in court proceedings. We are in a position to marshal all product safety facts relevant for the defence by investigating the details with our client. We also have many years‘ experience in procedural law as litigation and industry lawyers enabling, firstly, early recognition of any pitfalls inherent in the case and secondly, fruitful exploitation of all admissible procedural remedies for the benefit of our client.
Our advice precisely identifies the manufacturer’s duties of care to the public, in particular design, fabrication, instruction and product monitoring obligations. As trade experts, we are also clear as to the duties of care which must be satisfied by (wholesale, middleman and retail) traders for example additional product testing (also by external conformity assessment bodies). For the importer, the extent of its basic random sampling duty, even including safety-relevant testing of materials, must be determined so that any product liability law risks are effectively averted.
We advise comprehensively in that situation on all practically relevant issues i.e. firstly, in the constellation of supplier regress by which the product defect which emerges later is caused (factually or allegedly) by a defective part supplied. Here, our advice aims at clearly distinguishing the legal responsibilities of the final manufacturer and the supplier. In such disputes, the horizontal and vertical distribution of work on the one hand and any quality assurance agreements on the other hand are of the utmost importance. Secondly, recovery of costs, which can of course overlap with supplier regress claims, is of practical importance. Recovery of costs concerns the appropriate apportionment of the costs burden of a recall e.g. throughout the supply chain. We not only enforce such claims for our clients but also, of course, defend our clients against unjustified claims.