MIs it the same thing as putting a drug on the market that turns out to be defective and then leaving it there even though you know it causes fatal harm? This question is at the heart of the trial between M^Me X, victim of the mediator, in the Servier laboratories, which from 1976 marketed this antidiabetic drug, which was the cause of many deaths.

M^Me ” .

However, she is still waiting for compensation for her bodily harm, for which the Servier laboratories have offered her 9,700 euros, while she could receive 175,000 euros at the end of the second criminal trial for bodily harm and manslaughter, which will take place one day, but on one still unknown date.

Liability for defective products

To save time, the company took Servier Laboratories to court in July 2020 over liability for defective products; This is necessary when people suffer from the effects of medications “do not provide the security that one might reasonably expect”.

This basis provides for a short limitation period of three years – which has been exceeded in this case – from the moment the consumer becomes aware of the cause of his damage, unless he proves that this damage was caused by one ” Mistake “, in contrast to the simple defect; In this case they can “opt” for the common law regime and its long limitation period.

Ms. Attorney^Me X,M^e Anne Laure Tiphaine (Coubris Law Firm) therefore claimed that the heart damage his client suffered as a result of taking Mediator between 2006 and 2008 was due to this “intentional defect” Servier laboratories, which were informed about the dangers of the product in the 1990s, decided not to withdraw it from the market (while they removed it from Switzerland in 1999, Spain and Italy in 2003). Without that “Inaction”his client would be fine.

The judge in the matter, in particular the Court of Appeal of Versailles, which July 7, 2022, judged that the distinction she had made was correct “artificially”and only for intended “get around” the prescription rules. But on November 15, 2023 (Appeal 22-21.174)the Court of Cassation ruled that they were wrong: the product, which the manufacturer knows to be a defect, remains in circulation “a mistake”.

You still have 15% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.