Foreseeable use is wider than the intended purpose
Reasonably foreseeable use is a circumstance expressly listed in Article 7(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2024/2853. It is relevant to deciding whether a product provides expected or legally required safety. A manufacturer's description of intended use is important, but it does not necessarily exhaust the ways people can realistically be expected to handle the product. Ordinary operation and readily predictable lawful behaviour also matter.
The defectiveness test therefore requires a factual account of use rather than a label alone. Calling an event misuse does not establish that the behaviour was unforeseeable. Equally, imagining an unusual sequence after an accident does not establish that it was reasonably foreseeable beforehand. Identify the action, the surrounding conditions and the evidence supporting the relevant expectation.
The Directive's explanatory context
Recital 46 describes reasonably foreseeable use in terms of manufacturer-indicated intended use, ordinary use indicated by product design and construction, and use reasonably anticipated from lawful and readily predictable human behaviour. The recital helps explain the operative provisions; it is not a separate claim element replacing Article 7. The central question remains the safety of the product in all the circumstances.
This context discourages an artificially narrow analysis based only on a sentence in a manual. Product appearance, controls, accessibility and routine tasks may reveal realistic handling patterns. A removable part that must be cleaned, for example, creates questions about how people will encounter it during ordinary maintenance. The investigation should establish the actual task and risk rather than assume that all contact outside active operation is irrelevant.
Reconstruct the use sequence
Record what happened before, during and after the alleged failure. Identify who assembled, installed, configured, maintained and operated the product. These may be different people with different information. Preserve settings, environment, accessories and any unusual conditions. A broad account such as used normally is often insufficient to distinguish a realistic use pattern from a condition that materially changed the risk.
Separate contemporaneous observations from later explanations. A witness may accurately remember a noise while being unable to identify the component that produced it. A log may show a command without proving which person initiated it. Record those limits. Foreseeability and incident reconstruction depend on reliable facts, and overconfident reconstruction can distort both the expected-safety assessment and the causal analysis.
Restrictions need contextual examination
A warning against a behaviour can show that a risk was anticipated, but does not automatically decide whether the product provided sufficient safety. Consider the clarity, practicality and timing of the instruction together with design safeguards and the likely user group. If following an instruction requires steps that are difficult to perform during ordinary operation, that context may matter to the safety analysis.
The separate discussion of product misuse considers responsibility arguments and departures from instructions. Not every prohibited action has the same significance. A momentary predictable handling mistake, a substantial unauthorised modification and a deliberate attempt to defeat a guard describe different factual situations. Keep those distinctions visible instead of using misuse as a universal explanation for any event outside an ideal operating sequence.
Connected products and foreseeable combinations
Foreseeable use can involve other products. Article 7 separately identifies reasonably foreseeable effects of products expected to be used together, including through interconnection. Consider compatible accessories, ordinary replacement parts and connected-device settings. The fact that two products can physically connect does not alone establish that every combination is expected. Compatibility representations, technical limits and realistic use evidence help define the scenario.
Record the actual combination and versions. A device examined with a current accessory may behave differently from the incident-time setup. Likewise, a software update can change controls or default settings relevant to foreseeable behaviour. These facts do not automatically establish defectiveness or manufacturer responsibility. They identify the state that the safety assessment must examine and the questions requiring further evidence.
Foreseeability and proof are separate questions
Article 10(2)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption of defectiveness where the claimant demonstrates that damage was caused by an obvious malfunction during reasonably foreseeable use or ordinary circumstances. This is more specific than alleging that an accident occurred while the product was being used. The malfunction, the circumstances and the connection to the damage must meet the provision's conditions.
Article 10(1) otherwise begins with proof of defectiveness, damage and causation. A foreseeable use pattern may support the defectiveness analysis without proving what caused the incident. A product can be used foreseeably and still be damaged by an unrelated external event. Preserve competing explanations and identify what each record can establish. The defendant's right to rebut statutory presumptions also remains important.
Write a bounded conclusion
A useful account describes the use pattern, why it is or is not reasonably foreseeable and how that conclusion affects the alleged safety shortfall. Cite the product characteristics, instructions and user context supporting the explanation. If the evidence only establishes that the behaviour was possible, do not silently upgrade that to predictable. If common use is alleged, identify the factual foundation for that assertion.
The applicable national implementation and other scope conditions still require checking before evaluating an individual dispute. Foreseeable use does not guarantee compensation, and departure from intended use does not by itself eliminate every possible claim. It is a circumstance within a wider legal assessment that must remain tied to the actual product, harm and mechanism alleged.
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.
- Incident-time product identity and configuration
- Source documents and dated safety analysis
- Separate defect, damage and causation records
Independent educational information at EU Directive level. National implementing law and procedure require separate review.
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.