A defective product can cause very different consequences: an injury, damage to other property, or both. In these cases, it is natural to wonder whether the manufacturer or the seller is liable, whether it is enough to prove that the item broke, and how much time remains to take action.
I will explain how to distinguish a true safety defect from a simple malfunction, which damages fall within the manufacturer's liability, and which elements connect the product to the accident. We will also see why the warranty on the purchased goods and compensation for damages are different protections, how to behave when the manufacturer cannot be identified, and which deadlines must not be confused.
When the manufacturer is liable for the damage
Liability does not necessarily require proof of fault in design or manufacturing. Articles 114 et seq. of the Consumer Code provide for specific liability for damages caused by defective products. The current regulations can be consulted in Legislative Decree no. 206 of September 6, 2005.
This liability is often defined as strict because the injured party does not have to reconstruct every internal error within the company. Compensation, however, is not automatic: it is necessary to prove the defect, the damage, and the causal relationship between the two. A product that stops working is not, for that reason alone, a defective product in the meaning relevant to this protection.
The manufacturer may also prove one of the exclusion circumstances provided for by Article 118. They can demonstrate, for example, that they did not put the product into circulation, that the defect did not yet exist at that time, or that the available scientific and technical knowledge did not allow it to be recognized. It is therefore a strict, but not absolute, liability.
When a product is legally defective
The defect concerns the safety that can legitimately be expected, not the perfection of the product. Article 117 considers, among other circumstances, the presentation of the goods, visible characteristics, instructions, warnings, reasonably foreseeable use, and the time the product was put into circulation.
In concrete terms, the problem may stem from the design of the entire line, an anomaly in a single specimen, or insufficient instructions and warnings. What counts is the risk created in foreseeable use: the manufacturer is not liable for any imaginable use, but must also consider reasonably foreseeable behaviors, not just the ideal use described on the packaging.
The mere arrival on the market of a more modern or safer model does not make the previous one defective. Conversely, a specimen that offers lower safety than that normally guaranteed by other products in the same series may be defective. Malfunction, lack of conformity, and safety defects remain distinct concepts, even when they arise from the same technical problem.
A product recall, safety notice, or anomalies found on other specimens can be important elements, but they do not resolve the dispute on their own. The recall does not automatically prove the causal link with the specific injury; similarly, the absence of an official recall does not exclude the possibility that the individual product was defective.
Who may be held liable for compensation
The first subject to identify is the manufacturer. Depending on the supply chain, the manufacturer of the finished product, the manufacturer of a component or raw material, anyone who puts their name or trademark on the product presenting themselves as the manufacturer, and the importer who introduces a product from a third country into the European Union may become relevant.
If the defect depends exclusively on the design of the final product or the instructions received, the component manufacturer may invoke the specific exclusion cause provided for by Article 118. When, however, multiple parties are liable for the same damage, Article 121 establishes joint and several liability: the injured party can claim full compensation from any of the liable parties, leaving them to handle recourse relations with the others.
The role of the seller or supplier
The seller does not automatically coincide with the manufacturer. If the latter is not identified, Article 121 [Note: Article 116] allows a written request to be addressed to the supplier indicating the product, the place, and, with reasonable approximation, the date of purchase. The supplier avoids substitute liability by communicating within three months the identity and domicile of the manufacturer or the person who supplied the goods.
This is a different rule from the legal guarantee of conformity, which concerns the relationship between the consumer and the seller. To obtain the repair or replacement of the product, one normally turns to the seller; for damages caused by the defect, the criteria of manufacturer liability apply instead, without prejudice to any liability of the non-identifying supplier or other applicable legal bases.
What the injured party must prove
The essential elements are three: defect, damage, and causality. Article 120 of the Consumer Code places these facts on the injured party. The manufacturer must instead prove the circumstances that exclude its liability. The coordinated original text of the articles can also be found in the publication of the Consumer Code in the Official Gazette.
Proving the defect does not necessarily mean identifying the precise error that occurred inside the factory. However, concrete elements regarding the anomalous safety of the product must be offered: the state of the item, the circumstances of the accident, instructions, photographs, model and lot data, any communications from the manufacturer, and, when necessary, a technical assessment. Temporal coincidence alone is rarely enough.
Causality also requires attention. If a person is injured while using a device, it must emerge that the injury stems precisely from the defect and not from an independent factor. Medical records, health certifications, and assessments of the product have different functions: the former describe the personal injury, while technical analysis can clarify how the accident occurred.
Preserving the goods can be decisive, provided this is done without exposing oneself to further danger. Repairing, modifying, or disposing of it before it is documented can make the assessment more difficult. When it appears plausible that the damage was caused by the defect, Article 120 allows the judge to provisionally place the costs of the technical consultancy upon the manufacturer.
The injured party's conduct can reduce compensation. If imprudent use contributed to the accident, contributory negligence applies. If the person knows of the defect and the danger, but voluntarily decides to expose themselves anyway, compensation may be excluded. Ignoring clear warnings can therefore alter the outcome, but the manufacturer must have provided adequate information regarding the risk.
What damages are recoverable
The discipline covers first and foremost death and personal injury. Property and non-property consequences attributable to the injury may be relevant, provided they are proven and causally linked to the product. Quantization does not depend on the price of the goods: an inexpensive item can cause personal injury of a much greater magnitude.
The destruction or deterioration of property other than the defective product is also recoverable, if that property is normally intended for private use or consumption and was used mainly in this way by the injured party. For property damage, the threshold of 387 euros applies: within this discipline, the portion exceeding this amount is recoverable.
Damage to the defective product itself does not fall under Article 123. To recover the price, obtain repairs, or replace the goods, one must consider the legal guarantee, the contract, or other applicable rules. The same event may therefore require two protections: one for the purchased product and one for the person or other damaged property.
Article 127 preserves the rights recognized by other laws. This does not allow the same damage to be counted twice, but it makes it possible to verify whether alternative bases exist, such as contractual or extra-contractual liability founded on different assumptions. The party to be cited, the requested evidence, and the terms change: choosing the correct protection has concrete consequences.
Deadlines for claiming compensation
The limitation period is three years. According to Article 125, it runs from when the injured party had, or should have had, knowledge of the damage, the defect, and the identity of the responsible party. The date of the accident does not always coincide with the start of the limitation period, especially when the injury or its cause emerges only later.
Alongside the limitation period, there is a distinct limit. Article 126 provides for the extinction of the right ten years after the product was put into circulation by the manufacturer or importer in the European Union, if the action provided for by law is not initiated in the meantime. An informal claim must not be considered sufficient to safeguard every deadline.
The purchase date helps, but does not necessarily prove when the product was put into circulation. For this reason, the serial number, lot, year of manufacture, supply chain documents, and manufacturer information may count. The three-year limitation period and the ten-year limit must be checked separately: meeting one does not automatically neutralize the other.
The new European rules starting December 2026
The date of placing on the market also determines the future regime. Directive (EU) 2024/2853 concerns products placed on the market or put into service after December 8, 2026; for prior products, the system deriving from the previous directive continues to apply. The European deadline for national transposition is December 9, 2026, as stated in the text of the directive on product liability.
The new European discipline expressly includes digital products and software, introduces rules on access to evidence, and contemplates a longer period for certain latent personal injuries. These innovations must not be applied retroactively to products put into circulation under the previous regime. To establish the concrete discipline, one must therefore start from the relevant date and the applicable national text.
How to set up the claim without compromising evidence
Safety comes before the preservation of evidence. If the product still presents a risk, stop using it and prevent other people from accessing it. Without disassembling or altering it, document the goods, the point of the anomaly, the environment, and the effects of the accident. Keep the packaging, instructions, communications received, and identification data.
The written report to the seller and manufacturer must distinguish the malfunction from the damage caused. It is useful to indicate when and how the event occurred, which injuries or property are involved, and where the product is located. It is not advisable to immediately accept a replacement that involves the destruction of the specimen without first evaluating how to document its condition.
An out-of-court solution can reduce time and costs when liability and damages are adequately documented. If the manufacturer contests the defect, causality, or amount, a technical or judicial assessment may become necessary. Negotiations must not cause one to lose sight of deadlines, particularly when the product was put into circulation many years earlier.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need to have the receipt to claim compensation?
The receipt is useful, but it is not always the only possible evidence. It serves mainly to identify the product, the seller, and the date of purchase. Invoices, online orders, payments, packaging, serial numbers, and testimonies may also be relevant. The date of purchase, however, does not necessarily coincide with the date the manufacturer put the goods into circulation.
Does the breakage of the product automatically prove the defect?
No, breakage alone is not enough. It could depend on a defect, normal wear and tear, omitted maintenance, incorrect assembly, or unforeseeable use. It is necessary to link the anomaly to a safety level lower than that legitimately expected and to prove that that very problem caused the complained damage.
Can I claim compensation directly from the seller?
It depends on the protection exercised. For repairs, replacements, or other remedies relating to non-conforming goods, the reference is normally the seller. For damages caused by the product, the manufacturer or another equivalent operator is primarily liable. The supplier may be liable if the manufacturer is not identified and does not communicate the requested data within three months.
How much time do I have to take action?
The ordinary limitation period for this action is three years and runs from the knowledge, even if reasonably expected, of the damage, the defect, and the identity of the responsible party. There is also a ten-year limit from the placing into circulation by the manufacturer or the European importer. The two deadlines must be checked separately.
Can I throw away or repair the product after the accident?
It is preferable not to alter the product before documenting it, if it can be stored safely. Repair, disassembly, or disposal can prevent a technical assessment. If the object is dangerous, the priority remains avoiding further damage: it can be isolated and photographed, following relevant safety instructions.
Identifying the right protection for the damage suffered
The first step is to separate the malfunction from its effects: product replacement, personal injury, and damage to other property may require different claims and evidence. If you want to clarify who is liable, what deadline applies, and how to preserve useful elements without exposing yourself to other risks, you can contact us for an examination of your specific situation.