Abstract. The Italian Civil Code does not include any provisions dealing specifically with liability for detective products. Under Article 2043 of the Civil Code, anyone whose causes unlawful through wrongful or culpable conduct is obliged to pay compensation. The ‘Saiwa’ case (1964) marked an important change in the case law, when the Corte de Cassazione revised its position by introducing a presumption that the manufacturer was at fault. Two months before the expiry of the time period for implementation laid down in Article 19 of Directive 374/85, Italy adopted Presidential Decree No. 224 of May 25 1988, governing products liability. The decree correctly implements the content of the Directive, indeed it often uses the actual text of its provisions. Italy decided not to make use of the derogations provided for in the Directive. Consequently, Decree 224/88 does not set a limit on the liability of the manufacturer. Article 2 of the Decree sets out the categories of products which are not affected by the provisions: products of the soil, of stock-farming and of fisheries which have not been undergone initial processing. In addition, the rules provide a perfect definition of the idea of transformation. The development risks defence is included in the Decree. Incomprehensibly, Article 6, point E of the Decree uses, in place of the expression used in the Directive, the phrase ‘not permitted to consider the Directive defective’, which recalls the defence as it was formulated in the third and fourth drafts of the Directive. Almost five years after its entry into force, the Decree was first applied by a court. In July 1993, the Tribunal of Monza held that a manufacturer was obliged to make compensation for personal injury caused by a defective mountain bike. The judge affirmed that the consumer who suffered injury could legitimately expect the mountain bike to be particularly well constructed because it was advertised as a method of transport intended for use on mountains.
European Review of Private Law