A product hurt you: you do not have to prove negligence

They are Articles 1542, 1543 and 1544 of the Civil Code of 2020: who answers for damage a product causes, and when a product is unreasonably dangerous by its manufacture or its design.

Whoever suffered damage caused by a product sold in the flow of commerce, under the Puerto Rico Civil Code.

• That the product be sold in the flow of commerce and be unreasonably dangerous by its design or manufacture.Verified against the official source
• Whoever sells it answers for the damage the product causes even without incurring fault or negligence.Verified against the official source
• By manufacture: when it deviates from its design or does not meet the ordinary consumer’s safety expectations in the intended or reasonably anticipable use.Verified against the official source
• By design: when quality and safety do not meet an ordinary consumer’s expectations, or when the design causes the damage and the distribution chain does not prove it was reasonable.Verified against the official source

• The record of the purchase and of the product: Article 1542 reaches whoever sells it in the flow of commerce.
• The instructions or warnings that came with the product: Article 1544(b)(4) counts them when measuring whether the design was reasonable.
• The record of the use you gave it: the articles measure by the intended purpose or a reasonably anticipable one.

1. 1

   Step 1: Negligence need not be proved

   Article 1542: they answer for the damage that product causes even though they do not incur fault or negligence. The Code writes it that way, and it is what separates this claim from the ordinary fault-or-negligence one.

2. 2

   Step 2: Who answers

   The same article: the persons who sell in the flow of commerce. The Code does not define here what the flow of commerce is, and this guide does not define it for it.

3. 3

   Step 3: Two routes to a dangerous product

   Article 1542 names both: by its design or by its manufacture. The two following articles develop each separately.

4. 4

   Step 4: By manufacture: it deviates from its own design

   Article 1543, first route: when it deviates from its design. It is the defect of the particular unit you got, not of the whole model.

5. 5

   Step 5: Or it does not meet the safety expectations

   Second route of 1543: when it does not meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer who uses it for its intended purpose or for a purpose that is reasonably anticipable.

6. 6

   Step 6: The anticipable use counts too

   That last door matters: you need not have given it exactly the intended use, it is enough that the use was reasonably anticipable. The Code writes it that way.

7. 7

   Step 7: By design: the ordinary consumer’s expectations

   Article 1544(a): when its quality and safety do not meet the expectations of an ordinary consumer. The bar is the ordinary consumer, not the expert.

8. 8

   Step 8: Or the design caused the damage and they do not prove it reasonable

   Subsection (b): when the product’s design causes the damage and those intervening in the distribution chain do not prove the design is reasonable. The burden of that proof is placed on the distribution chain.

9. 9

   Step 9: The four factors weighed

   The same subsection lists them "among other things": the product’s utility; the technological limitations to designing it more safely at a reasonable cost; the unreasonable risk foreseeable at the moment of designing; and the instructions or warnings given for the product’s proper use. The phrase "among other things" leaves the list open.

10. 10

    Step 10: Warnings are a factor, not a separate category

    The Code places them among the factors measuring whether the design was reasonable. It does not open here a third defect category for failure to warn, and this guide does not invent one.

11. 11

    Step 11: What these articles do not carry

    They do not define the flow of commerce, do not say who counts as part of the distribution chain, set no claiming period and name no fee. Nor do they address the injured party’s own imprudence: the article closing the chapter does that, with its own guide.

The Code names no agency for this chapter. Product damage claims are decided by the Court of First Instance. If your matter is a consumer warranty or misleading advertising, there are separate forums and guides on this site.

• Believing the manufacturer’s negligence must be proved: Article 1542 says they answer even without fault or negligence.
• Dropping the claim for not having used the product exactly as stated: the reasonably anticipable purpose counts too.
• Assuming the injured party must prove the design was unreasonable: subsection (b) puts that proof on the distribution chain.
• Taking the four factors of Article 1544(b) as a closed list: the text says "among other things".
• Looking here for a separate failure-to-warn defect category: the Code treats warnings as a design factor.
• Not keeping the instructions or warnings that came with the product.
• Confusing this claim with the product warranty, which is a different route and forum.
• Looking in these articles for the period to sue: they fix none.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov