Claim against the manufacturer of a defective product: full indemnity

A professional who has used a defective product may claim from the manufacturer full reimbursement of the sums paid to the victim. This full indemnity requires two things: that its own liability towards the victim was incurred without fault, under a safety obligation to achieve a specific result (obligation de sécurité de résultat), and that no fault is attributed to it in the use of the product. Equal apportionment between parties liable without fault is set aside.

Key points

• A professional held liable towards the victim without any fault on its part, on the basis of a safety obligation to achieve a specific result, may obtain from the manufacturer reimbursement of all the sums paid.
• This full indemnity requires that no fault be established against the professional in the use of the product: the two conditions are cumulative.
• Apportionment in equal parts between joint tortfeasors liable without fault does not apply to this claim by the professional user against the manufacturer.
• A product is defective where it does not provide the safety which one is legitimately entitled to expect; the manufacturer answers for the damage caused by that defect, whether or not it is bound by a contract with the victim.
• Exposure to heat of a product sold for outdoor use in summer does not amount to abnormal use of the product.

Failure of a fairground ride bungee cord: the claim against the manufacturer

The manufacturer of a defective product may have to reimburse the entire compensation paid to the victim by the professional user who is free from fault. The first civil chamber so held on 18 February 2026 (Civ. 1re, 18 February 2026, No. 24-19.881). A person was seriously injured after taking a seat in the gondola of a fairground ride which was propelled into the air: one of the bungee cords holding the gondola broke. The victim brought proceedings against the ride operator and its insurer seeking a finding of liability and compensation. The operator and the insurer then joined the manufacturer of the bungee cords through third-party joinder proceedings (intervention forcée), so as to be indemnified against any award made against them.

A judgment which has become final held the operator entirely liable for the victim's damage. That judgment ordered it, together with its insurer, to make good the whole of the damage and to reimburse the caisse primaire d'assurance maladie for its outlays. The decision under appeal (CA Bourges, 16 May 2024, No. 23/00378) held the manufacturer liable for the defective product, then limited its contributory share to 50%. The judges of the court of appeal reasoned on the basis of joint tortfeasors liable without fault, whose compensation debt would be shared in equal parts.

The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) partially quashes that decision: it sets aside the limitation of the manufacturer's contributory share to 50% and remits the case, on that point, to the Orléans court of appeal. The rule laid down appears among the provisions cited: Articles 1386-1 et seq., now Articles 1245 et seq., of the French Civil Code, and Article 1147 of the same Code in its wording prior to the legislative order (ordonnance) of 10 February 2016 (free translation).

a professional who has used a defective product which caused damage and who has incurred liability towards the victim on the basis of a safety obligation to achieve a specific result may seek from the producer reimbursement of all the sums paid to the victim, in the absence of any fault in the use of the product.

The manufacturer also disputed the very defectiveness of the bungee cord and an alleged reversal of the burden of proof. The Cour de cassation rejects that challenge: the lower court judges found that a bungee cord holding a gondola propelled to nearly 40 metres in height must not break, that no abnormal and unforeseeable use had been established and that the maximum authorised number of jumps had not been reached. The bungee cord was therefore defective, "not providing the safety which one was legitimately entitled to expect".

What can the professional user claim from the manufacturer?

The professional user free from fault may claim from the manufacturer the whole of what it has paid to the victim, and not merely one half. A company operating equipment remains in the front line vis-à-vis the injured person: it answers to that person under its safety obligation, without any need to establish fault. That immediate liability does not, however, determine the final burden of the compensation. The definitive weight of the debt falls on the manufacturer of the defective product where the user has committed no fault in the use of the product.

Two conditions must be met cumulatively to obtain this full indemnity. First condition: the professional user's liability towards the victim was incurred without fault, under a safety obligation to achieve a specific result. Second condition: no fault is attributable to it in the use of the product. The claim obviously presupposes that the defective nature of the product is established. The manufacturer answers for the defect in its product, whether or not it is bound by a contract with the victim, which opens the way to this claim even without a direct contractual link.

What the abandonment of equal apportionment changes

Apportionment in equal parts between parties liable without fault does not govern the claim by the professional user against the manufacturer of the defective product. The judges of the court of appeal had treated the operator and the manufacturer as two joint tortfeasors subject to strict liability, and split the debt in two. The Cour de cassation rejects that reasoning: the absence of fault on the user's part requires the entire burden to be transferred to the manufacturer. For companies operating equipment bought from third parties, the difference is financial and immediate.

The decision also confirms the method of proving the defect. The claimant does not have to identify the exact technical cause of the failure: the legitimate expectation of safety, measured against the use for which the product is intended, is enough to characterise the defect. Exposure to heat of a bungee cord sold for an open-air fairground ride, in summer, does not amount to abnormal or unforeseeable use. The point which remains open concerns the converse situation: the decision does not settle the apportionment where a fault in use is found against the professional. The court of appeal to which the case is remitted will rule afresh on the contributory share.

What steps should the company using the product take?

The full indemnity is won on the absence of fault in the use of the product, which is demonstrated by documents created before the incident. A company operating equipment has an interest in being able to establish that it complied with the conditions of use set by the manufacturer, in particular limits on cycles or load, and that it carried out the maintenance announced. Conversely, in this case, the manufacturer produced no user manual for its product.

• Keep the instructions, manuals and technical data sheets provided by the manufacturer, together with proof that they were provided or that they were not.
• Keep records of use and maintenance up to date, with the limits of use indicated by the manufacturer.
• Keep the failed component after the accident, together with its storage conditions and its traceability, with a view to a possible expert appraisal.
• Join the manufacturer to the proceedings brought by the victim, rather than allowing the debate to be confined to the relationship with the victim.
• Inform the liability insurer and coordinate with it the indemnity claim directed against the manufacturer.

The checks to carry out after damage caused by a product

After an accident involving equipment, the user company must first identify the manufacturer of the component concerned and secure the failed part. It must then gather everything that documents compliant use: conditions of use provided, records of use, maintenance operations. It must finally assess whether it is appropriate to bring the manufacturer into the proceedings opened by the victim, so that the final burden of the compensation is determined in the same trial. As the case law stands at 18 February 2026, the absence of fault in the use of the product opens the way to full reimbursement, and not to apportionment by halves.