Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in Poland

In Poland, there are three primary legal grounds for bringing product liability claims:

Firstly, under articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), producers within the meaning of the KC or importers bear strict liability, meaning they are liable for damage caused by a defective (dangerous) product regardless of fault or negligence. To establish liability under the articles 449¹ et seq. KC, the claimant must prove that: (i) the product was defective (dangerous), (ii) damage occurred, and that (iii) a causal link exists between the defect and the damage. This liability is conditional on the product being typically intended for personal use and the injured party used it primarily in that manner. This law specifically covers personal injury, death, and damage to private property exceeding EUR 500.

Secondly, claimants may rely on the general tort liability provisions under article 415 of the Polish Civil Code. Unlike liability under articles 449¹ et seq KC, tort liability under article 415 KC requires proof of fault (typically negligence or intent) of the defendant. Liability under tort may encompass personal injury, property damage, and economic loss directly resulting from a defective product. 

Lastly, product liability claims can also be based on contractual warranty provisions under articles 556–576 of the Polish Civil Code. Contractual liability typically involves strict liability, meaning that the seller is liable if the product does not conform to the agreed-upon specifications at the time of delivery, irrespective of fault. This strict liability applies in particular to claims for cure (repair or replacement), rescission, and price reduction, which do not require the buyer to prove any negligence or intent on the part of the seller.

It should be noted that in B2C transactions involving goods, the Consumer Rights Act (Ustawa o prawach konsumenta) provides a separate and more favourable regime for consumers. In particular, Chapter 5a of the Act governs the seller's liability for lack of conformity of goods with the contract, and the Civil Code warranty provisions do not apply to such transactions (article 43a(1) of the Act). It should also be noted that under article 7aa of the Consumer Rights Act, the consumer protection provisions Chapters 4, 5a, and 5b of the Act – as a general rule – apply also to sole traders, i.e. natural persons concluding a contract directly related to their business activity, where the content of the contract indicates that it is not of a professional nature for that person. This effectively extends selected consumer protections – including the conformity regime for goods and digital content, as well as the right of withdrawal in distance contracts – to certain sole traders. However, the scope of this extension remains a matter of doctrinal debate, in particular as regards whether the prohibition on waiving consumer rights under article 7 of the Act (which is contained in Chapter 1, not expressly covered by the referral in Article 7aa) also applies to such quasi-consumers. This issue is further complicated by the fact that article 556⁴ KC in accordance with article 558 KC permits the exclusion or limitation of warranty rights in sales contracts that are not of a professional nature for the sole traders, potentially creating a tension with the mandatory consumer protection regime under Chapter 5a of the Act.

In contrast, claims for damages for breach of contract (non-performance or improper performance of a contract) are fault-based (unless e.g. strict liability is introduced by the parties in the contract). Under article 471 KC however it is presumed that the seller acted negligently with regard to the defect, placing the burden on the seller to demonstrate the absence of fault in order to avoid liability. This can in most cases be achieved if the seller is not the manufacturer as any negligence by the manufacturer is not attributed to the seller.

Under articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), a "product" is broadly defined in article 449¹ § 2 KC as “Any movable, even if incorporated into another movable or into an immovable, shall be a product. Animals and electric energy shall also be regarded as a product”. Thus, the term product refers to any movable item, regardless of whether it is a finished product, a component, or raw material and explicitly includes animals and electricity as well. Intangible items, such as standalone software, typically fall outside the traditional scope of article 449¹ § 2 KC unless they are embedded in or integral to a physical product.

However, recent developments at the EU level, particularly the new EU Product Liability Directive, will bring significant changes regarding software. Under the new directive, standalone software – including digital services and AI-based products – will be included in product liability frameworks, thereby expanding the potential liability risks for software producers.

Under warranty provisions within the Polish Civil Code, the concept of a "product" similarly refers predominantly to physical, movable goods.. However, in B2C transactions, software and other intangible digital products, are subject to a separate conformity regime under Chapter 5b of the Consumer Rights Act (Ustawa o prawach konsumenta). This regime applies to digital content, defined as data produced and supplied in digital form (e.g. software, applications, digital files), and to digital services such as cloud storage or software-as-a-service platforms. Where software is embedded in a physical product as an integral component without which the product cannot function properly (e.g. an operating system in a smartphone), it is treated as good with digital elements and falls under the general consumer sales regime rather than the digital content rules.

Polish law generally does not establish a fundamental distinction between consumer and business products in terms of the definition of a product itself. Nevertheless, significant differences arise in the application of consumer protection and warranty provisions. Consumers are granted broader statutory protections and mandatory rights, such as restrictions on limiting or excluding liability, whereas in B2B-transactions, parties generally enjoy greater contractual freedom, including the option to deviate from statutory warranty rules through individual agreements.

Under Polish law, claims under articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC) can be pursued by any individual who has suffered damage as a result of a defective product. 

As a general rule claims in tort also be pursued on behalf of deceased individuals. Specifically, the heirs of a deceased victim can bring a product liability claim to recover damages for losses incurred by the deceased prior to death, such as medical expenses or lost earnings. However, claims for pain and suffering may only be inherited if the deceased had brought a claim during their lifetime or if the defendant acknowledged the claim in writing. In addition to inherited claims, close family members and dependents may bring their own independent claims arising from the death of the victim. Persons who were financially dependent on the deceased may claim a pension for loss of financial support. The closest family members may also claim compensation for their own grief and suffering resulting from the victim's death.

The above rules on standing and claims of heirs and family members derive from the general tort provisions of the Civil Code and apply regardless of whether the claim is based on strict product liability (articles 449¹ et seq. KC) or fault-based tort liability (article 415 KC).

Contractual claims under warranty provisions may typically be pursued by the original contracting party or their legal successors, including heirs.

The general principle of Polish civil law is that claimants in non-contractual liability can seek compensation for both material and non-material damages. This includes damages resulting from a defective product.

Under Polish tort law, claimants may seek compensation in cases of personal injury or death caused by defective products. This includes reimbursement for medical expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for non-material damages such as pain and suffering. In the event of death, the law also allows for claims covering funeral costs and support for dependents. 

Under the strict product liability regime (articles 449¹ et seq. KC), property damage is subject to additional limitations: compensation is available only if the damaged item was intended for private use and is not the defective product itself; a deductible of EUR 500 applies. These limitations do not apply to claims brought under general tort law or contractual warranty provisions and/or contractual liability for damages for non-performance and/or improper performance of a contract.

On the other hand, contractual claims focus on the seller's financial liability for delivering a defective product. Typical remedies include repair, replacement, price reduction (as well as contract rescission). Compensation for damages related to non-performance and/or improper performance of a contract (e.g., lost profits or damage to other property caused by the defective product) is also possible under the contractual liability regime.

In all cases, Polish law follows the principle of full (financial) compensation, but it does not permit punitive or exemplary damages, regardless of the legal basis invoked.

Under Polish law, the definition of a "defective" product and the evidentiary requirements to prove a defect vary depending on whether the claim is based on strict liability under articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), fault-based tort law, or contractual warranty.

Within the meaning of the articles 449¹ et seq. KC, a product is considered defective under article 449¹ § 3 if it does not offer the safety that a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account. This includes the product’s presentation, its reasonably foreseeable use, and the time at which it was put into circulation. The standard is objective and based on the legitimate safety expectations of the average user. Design defects, manufacturing errors, and inadequate instructions or warnings ("instruction defects") can all render a product defective. Importantly, a product is not considered defective merely because a better or newer version has subsequently been put into circulation.

To succeed with a claim under articles 449¹ et seq. KC, the claimant must prove that (1) the product was defective as defined above, (2) damage occurred, and (3) there is a causal link between the defect and the specific injury or property loss, as well as (4) on the product being typically intended for personal use and (5) the injured party using it primarily in that manner. Fault is not required.

Under general tort law, the concept of defect is tied to either (i) breach of a provision of law and/or (ii) breach of duty of care and often follows similar substantive standards to those under articles 449¹ et seq KC. Liability arises if the producer breached a duty of care (or: in less typical cases: a provision of law) in design, production, quality control, product monitoring, or providing adequate warnings. Here, the claimant must prove not only the defect and damage, but also the producer's fault (intent or negligence). The claimant bears the full burden of proving the defendant's fault.

Under contractual warranty law, a product is defective if it lacks the agreed-upon characteristics or fails to meet objective requirements for conformity as set out in article 556¹ KC. This includes the product's suitability for its intended use, compliance with public statements, and adherence to expected quality and durability. Similar grounds apply in relation to contractual liability for damages.

In B2C sales, the law presumes that any defect appearing within a year of delivery existed at the time of delivery (article 556² KC), shifting the evidentiary burden to the seller. However, in B2C sales of goods, the presumption period is two years (article 43c Consumer Rights Act).

It should be noted that in B2C sales of goods, the applicable conformity standard differs from the Civil Code warranty provisions. Under Chapter 5a of the Consumer Rights Act, the consumer must demonstrate a lack of conformity of the goods with the contract, rather than a "physical defect" within the meaning of the Civil Code. The conformity requirements under the Consumer Rights Act are broader and encompass both subjective requirements (agreed characteristics, fitness for a particular purpose – Article 43b(1)) and objective requirements (fitness for ordinary use, typical quality, durability and safety, compliance with applicable standards and public statements, completeness of packaging, accessories and instructions – Article 43b(2)). In particular, the explicit inclusion of durability and safety as conformity criteria may be of relevance in the context of product liability claims involving consumer goods

In summary, while the definition of defect varies across legal regimes, it consistently centres on deviations from expected safety standards or agreed contractual qualities.

In Polish product liability cases, the claimant generally bears the burden of proof for the inter alia existence of a defect, the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two. Under articles 449¹ et seq. KC, although liability is strict and fault does not need to be proven, the injured party must still demonstrate defect, damage and causation. Courts may, however, allow reliance on circumstantial evidence or apply prima facie presumptions where a product fails unexpectedly under normal use.

In tort claims under article 415 KC, the burden is heavier: the claimant must prove not only the defect, damage, and causation but also fault (negligence or intent). The claimant bears the full burden of proving the defendant's fault. This makes fault-based tort claims significantly more difficult to pursue in practice than claims under the strict liability regime.

In the context of contractual warranty claims, buyers must demonstrate that the goods being sold are defective, i.e. in particular they are not conform with the contract and/or communications from the seller. In consumer sales, article 556² KC and article 43c of Consumer Right Act shifts the burden: if the defect appears within – respectively - one or two years, it is presumed to have existed at delivery unless the seller proves otherwise. No such presumption exists in B2B sales

The prevailing view in Polish legal doctrine is that the statutory allocation of the burden of proof under article 6 KC is a rule addressed to the court and cannot be directly modified by contract. However, parties may indirectly affect the evidentiary position by shaping the substantive terms of their contractual relationship, for example by defining which facts constitute preconditions for specific claims or by establishing contractual inspection and notification procedures

In B2B contracts, such contractual arrangements are generally permissible under the principle of freedom of contract (article 353¹ KC), provided they do not violate mandatory legal provisions or public policy.

In B2C contracts the scope for modifying the burden of proof is restricted. In particular, article 556² KC or article 43c of Consumer Right Act, which provides for a reversal of the burden of proof in favor of the consumer for defects. Any attempt to contractually exclude or restrict this rule to the consumer’s detriment would be invalid. More broadly, Article 7 of the Consumer Rights Act provides that the consumer cannot waive the rights granted by the Act, and any contractual terms less favourable to the consumer are void and replaced by the statutory provisions.

In the context of product liability under articles 449¹ et seq. KC, liability is largely mandatory and governed by strict public policy. According to article 449⁹ KC, the liability for a damage caused by a hazardous product may not be excluded or limited. Consequently, contractual clauses that seek to shift or increase the claimant's burden of proof under this regime would not be enforceable.

Polish courts assess whether a product is "defective" primarily by applying an objective safety expectation standard, particularly under the strict liability regime of articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC) and tort law. The key question is whether the product fails to offer the level of safety that a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account.

Under article 449¹ § 3 KC, relevant factors include the presentation of the product (e.g., packaging, instructions, marketing), the reasonably foreseeable use of the product, and the time when the product was put into circulation. These criteria are applied from the perspective of an average user. Courts will examine whether the risk posed by the product exceeds what a user could reasonably expect, considering normal handling and foreseeable misuse. A product is not considered defective simply because a safer or newer version was later developed.

Breaches of regulatory requirements or safety standards, e.g. EU directives, technical norms (PN), or CE marking obligations, are highly relevant in this assessment. A violation of applicable safety standards can indicate that the product is defective. While not all technical standards are legally binding, non-compliance may be seen as evidence of a failure to meet the expected level of safety. Conversely, compliance with current standards does not automatically rule out a defect but may support the producer’s position.

In tort claims under article 415 KC, the same safety criteria are relevant, but courts additionally assess whether the producer breached specific duties of care – in particular in design, manufacturing, quality control, instructions, and post-sale monitoring. These duties are judged based on the current state of science and technology, which are often reflected in applicable technical standards and regulatory requirements. 

Under Polish law, multiple entities within the product supply chain can be held liable for defects, depending on the legal basis of the claim. Liability may arise under strict liability regime of articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), tort law (article 415 KC), or contractual provisions under the Polish Civil Code.

Under strict liability regime of articles 449¹ et seq. KC primary liability falls on the producer of the defective product. This includes not only the actual producer of the final product but also:

• Component producers, if a defective component causes the harm;
• Quasi-producers, who present themselves as the producer by branding or labeling the product as their own;
• Importers into the domestic trade, even if they are not the original producer;
• In certain cases, suppliers or distributors, if the actual producer cannot be identified. Under article 449⁵ § 4 KC, a supplier must name the producer or previous supplier; if they fail to do so in a timely manner, they may be held liable as if they were the producer.

In tort law, any party in the supply chain which commits a tort (see above) and thereby causes damage may be liable (alone or jointly and severally with other culprits). This could include producers, suppliers, wholesalers, or retailers; the latter, however, only if they negligently handled or failed to inspect the product. The above also applies to or anyone who e.g. incited another person to cause the damage or assisted them in doing so, as well as with anyone who knowingly benefited from the damage caused to another. Liability depends on whether the defendant exercised adequate care in their role.

In contractual relationships, liability is only attached to the seller or contractual partner. This includes retailers and distributors who deliver defective products. The buyer may assert warranty claims directly against the party with whom the contract was concluded, even if the defect originated further up the supply chain. Similar remarks apply to contractual liability for damages where only the direct contract partner may be held liable for a breach of contract (i.e. non-performance and/or improper performance of a contractual obligation).

If multiple parties are responsible for damage caused by a defective product, they are jointly and severally liable (odpowiedzialność solidarna) to the injured party. This means the claimant may recover the full amount of damages from any one of the liable parties. The party who has compensated the injured party may seek contribution from the remaining liable parties in proportion to the circumstances, in particular the fault of each party and the degree to which each contributed to the damage.

Under the strict liability regime of articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), if more than one party is liable (e.g. a producer and an importer), they are jointly and severally liable to the injured party under 449⁵ § 3 and 449⁶ KC. This means the claimant may recover the full amount of damages from any one of the liable parties. The party that pays more than its share may then seek contribution from the others in internal recourse proceedings. depending on their respective degrees of fault or responsibility. Article 449⁶ KC expressly refers to articles 441 § 2 and 3 KC, under which the extent of the recourse claim depends on the circumstances, in particular the extent to which each party contributed to the damage.

In tort law, the same principle of joint and several liability applies (article 441 § 1 KC). If multiple tortfeasors jointly cause harm, each is fully liable to the claimant for the entire damage. The party who has compensated the injured party may seek contribution from the remaining liable parties in proportion to the circumstances, in particular the fault of each party and the degree to which each contributed to the damage. If it cannot be determined who caused which part of the damage, courts may divide liability equally or based on estimated responsibility.

In contractual warranty cases, the seller is primarily liable to the buyer, even if the defect stems from a third party (e.g. the producer). However, the seller may pursue recourse claims against upstream suppliers or producers, assuming statutory or contractual conditions are met.

Under the strict liability regime of articles 449¹ et seq. KC, the producer may avoid liability by proving one of the statutory defences under article 449³ KC:

• the producer did not put the product into circulation, or the product was put into circulation outside the scope of the producer's business activity;
• the hazardous properties of the product appeared after the product was put into circulation, unless they resulted from a cause inherent in the product;
• the hazardous properties of the product could not have been foreseen, having regard to the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was put into circulation;
• the hazardous properties of the product resulted from the application of mandatory legal provisions.

In the case of component, material, or raw material producers: the producer may be exonerated if the sole cause of the damage was the defective design of the final product or the instructions given by the producer of the final product (article 449⁵ § 1 KC).

In tort claims under article 415 KC, a defendant may defend themselves by proving the absence of fault, i.e., that all due care was taken in product design, production, instructions, and post-market surveillance. If the damage was caused by misuse or third-party interference or if the claimant contributed significantly to the damage, this may either exclude liability or lead to a reduction under the principle of contributory negligence.

In contractual warranty cases, the seller may avoid liability by proving that the defect did not exist at the time of delivery. The seller's liability is independent of fault. In B2B transactions, warranty claims may be precluded if the buyer failed to properly inspect the goods and notify defects in time, pursuant to article 563 KC. 

However, the seller may avoid liability for damages under article 471 KC by demonstrating that the non-performance of the contract resulted from circumstances for which the seller is not responsible.

Under Polish law, the ability to limit or exclude liability for product defects depends on the legal basis of the claim and the parties involved. While contractual limitation clauses are generally permitted in B2B transactions, there are statutory restrictions in consumer protection and strict liability contexts. Further, there are limits on limiting or excluding liability both in B2C (esp. in general terms and conditions) and B2B transactions. 

In cases brought under the strict product liability regime (articles 449¹ et seq. KC), liability cannot be contractually excluded or limited. Article 449⁹ KC expressly prohibits any exclusion or limitation of the producer's liability for damage caused by a dangerous product. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the injured party is a consumer or a business. Even indemnification agreements between commercial parties (e.g., between a producer and distributor) cannot affect the injured party's right to compensation.

In Polish tort law, general exclusions of liability for personal injury or death are not permitted, as such clauses would be contrary to the principles of social coexistence under article 58 § 2 KC. However, in cases of concurrent contractual and tort liability (article 443 KC), the prevailing view in Polish legal doctrine is that the parties may, within certain limits (see below comments made regarding contractual liability), contractually exclude the right to pursue a tort claim, provided the exclusion does not concern personal injury, intentional fault, or fall within the scope of a statutory prohibition.

In contractual relationships, liability for intentional conduct cannot be excluded (Article 473 § 2 KC). In contractual warranty claims, liability can be limited or excluded by agreement in B2B contracts (article 558 § 1 KC). Parties may modify duration of the warranty, reduce available remedies, or exclude warranty rights entirely. However, any limitation or exclusion of warranty is ineffective if the seller fraudulently concealed the defect from the buyer. In B2C contracts, the scope for limiting warranty rights is significantly restricted under mandatory consumer protection law. The seller cannot exclude or limit statutory warranty rights to the consumer's detriment. Contractual terms that have not been individually negotiated and that are contrary to good morals and grossly disadvantage the consumer are deemed unfair contract terms under article 385¹ KC and are not binding on the consumer.

In B2C contracts involving goods, under Article 7 of the Consumer Rights Act, the consumer cannot waive the rights granted by the Act. Any contractual terms less favourable to the consumer than the provisions of the Act are void and replaced by the statutory provisions.

Under Polish law, different rules regarding limitation periods apply for claims under the strict product liability regime, tort law, and contractual warranty provisions. While the occurrence of death may impact the type of damages recoverable, it does not generally alter the limitation periods themselves.

For claims under the strict product liability regime, the limitation period is three years from the date the claimant became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage and the identity of the liable party (article 449⁸ KC). This period is subject to a long-stop limitation of ten years from the date the product was first put into circulation, regardless of the claimant's knowledge. Once this ten-year period has expired, claims are time-barred even if the claimant was unaware of the defect.

In tort law, the same three-year subjective limitation period applies. It begins on the date the injured party became aware, or should have become aware, of the damage and the identity of the liable party. As with product liability, there is also a maximum limitation period of 10 or 20-years, depending on the circumstances. In particular, where the damage results from a crime, the limitation period is extended to 20 years (article 442¹ § 2 KC), while other tort-based claims usually fall under the 10-year cut-off.

In contractual warranty claims, the standard limitation period is two years for movable goods (article 568 § 1 KC) starting from the date of delivery. In B2C sales of goods governed by the Consumer Rights Act, the limitation regime differs significantly. The seller is liable for any lack of conformity revealed within two years of delivery (article 43c of the Act). However, the Consumer Rights Act does not specify a separate limitation period for consumer claims arising from lack of conformity. As the Civil Code provisions on limitation of warranty claims (article 568 KC) do not apply to contracts governed by the Consumer Rights Act, the general rules on limitation under the Civil Code apply. Consumer claims for repair or replacement are subject to the general limitation period of six years under article 118 KC, with the limitation period expiring at the end of the calendar year. By contrast, the consumer's rights to reduce the price or to withdraw from the contract are formative rights and, as such, are not subject to limitation periods. The only temporal constraint is that the lack of conformity must have manifested itself within the seller's two-year period of liability. However, the consumer’s monetary claim for a refund of the price is itself subject to the six-year limitation period under article 118 KC, with the commencement of that period being shifted in accordance with article 120 § 1 KC. By analogy to article 568 § 6 KC, where the seller has fraudulently concealed a defect, the consumer's formative rights are similarly unrestricted in time.

Yes, product liability claims in Poland often involve implied contractual warranties, particularly in the context of sales contracts governed by the Polish Civil Code. These implied warranties form a key part of the buyer’s protection when a product turns out to be defective and supplement or overlap with claims under tort law or the strict product liability regime of Articles 449¹ et seq. KC.

Under article 556 KC, the seller is obligated to deliver a product free of material defects and legal defects. A material defect exists if the product does not comply with the subjective requirements (agreed characteristics), objective requirements (fitness for ordinary use and usual quality), and integration requirements (installation or compatibility issues, including for digital products) at the time of delivery.

In B2C transactions involving goods, the seller's implied liability is governed by Chapter 5a of the Consumer Rights Act (Ustawa o prawach konsumenta). Under this regime, the seller is liable for any lack of conformity of the goods with the contract, rather than for a "material defect" within the meaning of the Civil Code. The conformity requirements are broader and encompass both subjective requirements (agreed characteristics, fitness for a particular purpose – Article 43b(1)) and objective requirements (fitness for ordinary use, typical quality, durability and safety, compliance with applicable standards and public statements – Article 43b(2)). The conformity requirements are mandatory, and contractual exclusions or limitations to the consumer's detriment are not permitted (Article 7 of the Act). Additionally, for digital content and digital services in B2C transactions, a separate conformity regime applies under Chapter 5b of the same Act.

To sum up, in consumer contracts, these implied warranties are mandatory, and contractual exclusions or limitations are heavily restricted by consumer protection law. In B2B transactions, implied warranties still apply, but the parties have more flexibility to modify or exclude them by contract.

If a product is defective within the meaning of articles 556 et seq. of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny, KC), the buyer is entitled to several remedies under article 560 KC:

• The buyer can demand repair or replacement, with the seller bearing all related costs.
• If repair or replacement is impossible or would involve disproportionate costs, the buyer may either reduce the purchase price or withdraw from the contract.
• Under article 566 KC, expenses incurred in reliance on receiving a proper product may be refunded.

In consumer contracts, statutory protections like the one year burden of proof reversal (article 556² KC) apply, and warranty exclusions are largely ineffective.

In B2C sales of goods, the remedies are governed by Chapter 5a of the Consumer Rights Act. Unlike under the Civil Code, the consumer must first request repair or replacement (Article 43d(1)). The seller may refuse the chosen remedy only if bringing the goods into conformity in the manner chosen by the consumer is impossible or would involve disproportionate costs (Article 43d(2)). The consumer may seek a price reduction or withdraw from the contract (Article 43e) only where: 

• the seller has refused to bring the goods into conformity or has failed to do so within a reasonable time;
• the lack of conformity persists despite the seller's attempt to remedy it; or 
• the lack of conformity is so serious as to justify an immediate price reduction or withdrawal. 
• it is clear from the seller's statement or from the circumstances that the seller will not bring the goods into conformity with the contract within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Importantly, it is presumed that the lack of conformity is serious unless the seller proves otherwise (Article 43e(4)).

In addition to the above warranty remedies, the buyer may seek compensation for consequential losses under article 471 KC (e.g., lost profits or damage to other property caused by the defective product).

No, punitive damages are not recoverable in breach of warranty cases under Polish law.

Poland follows the principle of full compensation as codified in § 361 KC, which aims to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the contract been properly fulfilled. Damages are limited to actual, measurable losses - either material (e.g., repair costs, lost profits) or, in limited cases, non-material (e.g., pain and suffering in personal injury cases).

Polish law provides for rather limited and specific rules on document disclosure in litigation, including product liability cases. However, unlike common law jurisdictions, Poland does not recognize broad pre-trial disclosure or discovery elements. Instead, disclosure is tightly regulated and based on party initiative and judicial discretion.

Article 248 § 1 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, KPC) allows the court to order either party or even a third party to produce documents, but only if the requesting party specifically identifies the document and explains its relevance to the dispute. Fishing expeditions or blanket disclosure requests are generally not permitted. An exception to this general approach may apply in the context of representative actions brought by qualified entities under the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Ustawa o dochodzeniu roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym). In proceedings concerning practices infringing collective consumer interests, the so-called qualified entity (entitled to pursue such claim) may request the court to order the defendant to disclose evidence relevant to the case, which constitutes a broader disclosure mechanism than that available under the standard rules of civil procedure.

Where a party to the proceedings refuses to comply with a court order to produce a document without adequate justification, Article 233 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to assess the evidentiary significance of such refusal. In practice, this means the court may draw adverse inferences against the non-compliant party, treating the refusal as an indication that the withheld document would have been unfavourable to that party's case.

Where a third party refuses without justified cause to produce a document in their possession, the court may impose a fine. 

In product liability cases, commonly requested or submitted documents include:

• Technical specifications and design documentation;
• Test and safety reports, including internal quality control records;
• User manuals, packaging, and warnings (relevant for presentation defects);
• Compliance documents, such as CE certifications or declarations of conformity;
• Internal communications or reports on prior incidents, recalls, or known risks (if known to exist).

If the product was manufactured abroad, access to such documents may be complicated by cross-border evidence rules, including the Hague Evidence Convention, if applicable.

Yes, Poland provides for forms of collective redress. The legal framework is primarily governed by the Act of 17 December 2009 on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings (Ustawa o dochodzeniu roszczeń w postępowaniu grupowym), which covers product liability claims.

Polish law recognises two forms of collective action, although only one is directly applicable to product liability claims:

1. Group Proceedings. 

This is the primary and most common mechanism for collective redress in product liability cases. Group proceedings are available for claims of the same kind brought by at least 10 persons based on the same or substantially similar factual circumstances. The proceedings are initiated by a group representative.  The representative acts in their own name but on behalf of all group members.

For monetary claims, claimants must standardise the amount of their claims either across the entire group or within subgroups of at least two persons. This requirement does not apply to consumer claims.  Alternatively, the action may be limited to a declaratory judgment establishing the defendant's liability for a particular event, in which case individual claimants must pursue separate proceedings for specific damages

2. Representative Actions. 

Polish law provides for representative actions brought exclusively by qualified entities. These actions may seek a declaration that a practice infringes collective consumer interests and an order to cease such practice, a public statement concerning the infringement, or in certain cases, specific performance or compensation on behalf of consumers.

Representative actions may theoretically apply to product liability matters where the defendant's conduct constitutes a practice infringing collective consumer interests. However, such actions are primarily designed to seek an order to cease the infringing practice, a public statement, or a product recall - rather than compensation for individual damages caused by defective products. For this reason, group proceedings remain the appropriate mechanism for typical product liability claims.

Polish law follows an opt-in model for both group proceedings and representative actions concerning consumer claims. Once the court issues a decision to proceed with the group action, it orders a public notice announcing the commencement of proceedings.   

In Poland, product liability lawsuits are typically funded by the claimants themselves. Claimants generally bear the financial risk of litigation, including court fees, legal representation costs, and expert witness expenses.

Third-party litigation funding (TPF) is not specifically regulated under the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. There is no general statutory framework governing TPF arrangements in individual civil proceedings, including product liability cases.

However, the Act on Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings introduces specific disclosure and oversight rules for TPF in representative actions brought by qualified entities. In such cases, qualified entities must attach funding agreements to the statement of claim, and the court examines whether the funding arrangement adversely affects consumer interests or creates conflicts of interest. These requirements do not apply to standard group proceedings, which remain the primary mechanism for product liability claims.

Yes, under Polish civil procedure law, the losing party generally bears the costs of the proceedings, including court fees and the legal fees of the prevailing party. This principle applies fully to product liability litigation.

Specifically, recoverable costs include:

• court fees based on the value of the claim;
• costs of legal representation;
• costs of expert opinions, witness expenses, and translation if necessary.

However, the recoverable costs of legal representation are capped by maximum rates set forth in the Regulation of the Polish Minister of Justice on attorneys' fees. These statutory rates are often significantly lower than actual fees charged by counsel, meaning that successful parties may not fully recover their legal costs.

Polish law permits success-based remuneration arrangements, but subject to important limitations under professional ethics rules.

In individual civil proceedings, attorneys may charge a success fee in addition to their standard remuneration. However, professional ethics rules for attorneys prohibit working solely on a contingency basis without any baseline remuneration. A purely contingent fee arrangement, where the attorney receives payment only if successful, is considered unethical.

In group proceedings, success fees are expressly permitted and may be structured as a percentage of the amount awarded, but are capped at 20% of the amount awarded to group members. This limitation aims to protect claimants from excessive fee arrangements while enabling access to legal representation in complex collective cases.

There have been no significant court decisions specifically addressing strict product liability under articles 449¹ et seq. of the Polish Civil Code within the past 12 months. While warranty disputes involving defective products are common in Polish courts, they typically concern individual consumer claims and rarely result in precedent-setting judgments of broader significance for product liability law. Similarly, no notable rulings have been issued under general tort law in the product liability context during this period.

Yes, significant legislative reforms are underway in the European Union that will substantially impact product liability laws, particularly concerning emerging technologies such as software, artificial intelligence (AI), and connected devices. The most notable development is the adoption of the new EU Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853), which aims to modernize the existing framework to address the complexities introduced by digitalization and AI. 

Key Changes introduced by the new EU Product Liability Directive include:

• Expanded Definition of "Product": The directive explicitly includes software (both standalone and integrated), digital files (e.g., for 3D printing), and AI systems within the scope of product liability. This inclusion ensures that defects in digital products can lead to liability claims. 
• Inclusion of Additional Economic Operators: Liability is extended beyond traditional producers to include authorized representatives, importers, fulfillment service providers, and, under certain conditions, online marketplaces. This change reflects the evolving nature of supply chains and the role of various intermediaries in product distribution. 
• Recognition of Software Updates and Cybersecurity: Companies can be held liable for damages resulting from missing or inadequate software updates and insufficient cybersecurity measures. This provision underscores the importance of maintaining digital products post-sale.
• Extended Scope of Responsibility: While under the current law, the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the producer put the product into circulation is decisive the producer has to consider later changes if the products remains within its control which for example is the case if he provides regular software updates for the product. 
• Extended Scope of Recoverable Damages: The directive broadens the types of compensable damages to include data loss or corruption, reflecting the value and importance of digital assets.
• Facilitated Evidence Disclosure: Courts may order defendants to disclose relevant evidence under their control when a claimant has presented a plausible case. This measure aims to address information asymmetries between consumers and producers.
• Adjusted Burden of Proof: In cases involving complex technologies, the directive allows for a presumption of defectiveness and causality if proving these elements is excessively difficult for the claimant, provided that the defect and the causal link are likely.
• Extended Limitation Periods: The long-stop period for bringing claims is extended from 10 to 25 years in cases involving latent personal injuries, acknowledging that some harm may manifest long after product use

These reforms are particularly pertinent to sectors involving AI and digital products. Producers and developers of AI systems must now consider the potential for liability arising from algorithmic decisions, lack of transparency, and the need for ongoing updates and monitoring.

EU Member States are required to transpose the new Product Liability Directive into national law by 9 December 2026. Businesses should proactively assess their product liability exposure, particularly concerning digital and AI-enabled products, and implement necessary compliance measures.