Build a mechanism, not only a timeline
State how the alleged defect could produce the damage and identify the evidence for each step. A chronology is useful for ordering events, but a technical mechanism may require testing, expert analysis and consideration of intervening factors. Keep factual observations separate from interpretations.
Consider alternative explanations
Installation, maintenance, external events, another product and later modifications may affect the analysis. Preserve evidence that supports competing explanations as well as the initial hypothesis. A reliable investigation should not discard inconvenient information merely because it complicates the preferred account.
Understand the presumption routes
Article 10(3) provides a causation presumption where a defect is established and the damage is of a kind typically consistent with it. Article 10(4) has a separate complexity route. These provisions should be applied through their conditions, and defendants retain the ability to rebut under Article 10(5).
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.
- Event chronology with source references
- Proposed failure mechanism
- Testing and expert assumptions
- Alternative causes and intervening changes
Correlation and sequence are evidence to assess; neither is a universal proof of causation.
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 7, 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.