Protection against damage arising from unsafe products: Strict liability and burden of proof from the soft drink case: Escola v Coca Cola Bottling Co., (Cal 1944) and the Consumer Black Case No. 1500. /2558

Abstract

Defective products cause damage to life, body, health, sanity, mentality, and property. Therefore, the principles of strict liability and Res Ipsa Loquitur are applied as the main principles in the product liability law. The manufacturers will be held liable when it appears that there is damage incurred from a normal use of their own products, regardless of whether the damage was caused intentionally or negligently. As for the injured person, the burden of proof is only to prove that the he sustained damages from the product of the entrepreneurs, and the use or storage of the product was done in a normal manner. This is due to the public policy that manufacturers should bear the burden of preventing damage caused by their products and that consumers should receive fair remedies. Consumers must be knowledgeable and aware of their rights and claims. Understanding and studying the principles as well as the background and enforcement of the law is therefore important. The Product Liability Act (B.E. 2551) has been in forced for 15 years. There have been few landmark Supreme Court decision. This article considers the liability of the manufacturer and the burden of proof of the injured of unsafe products based on the principles of the unsafe products liability law from the Escola v Coca Cola Bottling Co., (Cal 1944), which laid down the manufacturer's liability and the burden of proof of the injured in the United States and the landmark Thai consumer case, Black Case No. 1500/2558.