Keep the three elements distinct
Evidence of a product failure is not automatically evidence of the claimed damage, and evidence of damage is not automatically evidence of a safety defect. State each element separately and identify the material that supports it. This makes gaps and disputed assumptions easier to see.
Presumptions have conditions
Article 10 includes circumstances concerning failure to disclose, relevant safety non-compliance, obvious malfunction, typically consistent harm and excessive technical or scientific difficulty. Each route has its own conditions. A party should identify the particular provision relied on and the facts said to meet it.
The presumption remains rebuttable
Article 10(5) permits defendants to rebut the presumptions. Evidence may address whether the alleged defect existed, whether it caused the damage or whether another explanation is supported. A presumption does not amount to a final judicial determination of every issue in a claim.
Records that help the review
Use the following as a practical starting point. Select and preserve records appropriate to the product, incident and applicable procedure.
- Evidence of the alleged safety defect
- Evidence of the damage category and loss
- Mechanism connecting defect and harm
- Facts supporting or rebutting a specific presumption
No-fault liability does not mean no proof is required.
Primary sources and legal scope
This page explains the EU Directive framework. Check national implementing law, the corrected temporal scope and relevant procedure before applying it to a case.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2853, consolidated text: Articles 9, 10 ↗
- Official Journal corrigendum, 7 May 2026: Article 2(1) ↗
Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.