缺陷产品自身损害的救济路径研究

发布时间：2018-08-03 10:58

【摘要】：《侵权责任法》颁布以来,缺陷产品自身损害的救济方式一直争议不断:一方面,由于《侵权责任法》与《产品质量法》规定上的出入,引发我国司法实践和理论界的混乱;另一方面,比较法上中对纯粹经济损失排除规则的反思与消费者保护的的进一步强化,引发大陆与英美法系各主要国家理论与实务上对传统民法缺陷产品自身损害救济模式的质疑与革新。对缺陷产品自身损害,学者们提出了侵权与违约两种救济模式。前者通过扩大侵权法产品责任的保护范围,将产品自身损害纳入到侵权责任的射程范围内;而后者则是运用“可转移的瑕疵担保责任”、“明示、默示担保责任”等理论工具,通过降低合同相对性的要求,允许消费者直接向生产者主张责任。结合我国理论与司法实践,宜采产品责任救济之模式。在采用扩张《侵权责任法》第41条一般产品责任损害范围的方式时,并非将所有的“产品自身损害”均纳入产品责任的保护范围,而应当以“缺陷”为标准,合理区分契约法与侵权法。同时,在赔偿损失的范围上,笔者认为,并非所有的缺陷产品自身损害均可获赔,只有生产者合理遇见范围内的,且属于消费者私人使用造成的损害,方可获赔。本文分为四章对该问题进行研究:第一章缺陷产品自身损害概述。本章首先对缺陷产品自身损害的范围进行了必要的界定,并对产品自身损害与产品缺陷造成的其他损害进行了区分。其次,对传统民法中对纯粹经济损失排除规则的理论基础进行了必要的整理,并对包含产品自身损害在内的纯粹经济损失侵权法排除保护规则从理论和现实两方面进行了反思,并对各国法律中对纯粹经济损失排除规则修正的实践进行了梳理。结合我国司法实际,结果无非两种:一是运用传统民法的思路,只允许消费者向合同相对方主张违约责任。二是采用产品责任之一般规定,将产品自损纳入到产品责任的保护范围内。从数量上来看,后者已俨然成为我国的通说。第二章学说中救济路径的考察。本章分别对比较法中缺陷产品自身损害的救济路径进行了梳理。总体上来看,改革主要可以区分为运用侵权法救济路径与运用契约法的救济路径。首先,在大陆法系,德国司法实务主张通过“继续侵蚀性损害”理论,将产品自损纳入到德国民法823条一般侵权行为的救济范围中,并通过判例予以确认。而法国法则通过“可转移的瑕疵担保责任”理论,允许消费者直接向生产商主张物之瑕疵担保责任。而日本法中则倾向于“折中说”,即在固有利益与产品自身均存在损害时方运用侵权法予以救济。而在我国台湾地区法律中,稍早作出的判例虽仍然坚守传统学说的观点,但近来也有部分判决认为产品自身损害属于商品责任。其次,在英美法中,大部分法院倾向于运用产品的“默示、明示担保责任”予以解决,认为消费者可以直接向生产者主张这一责任,并在美国《统一商法典》、第三次《侵权法重述:产品责任》中予以确认。当然,有少数法院仍旧运用侵权行为法对产品自损予以救济。最后,基于比较法上的做法,我国学者相应地分别提出了运用侵权法保护的“肯定说”与运用合同法救济的“否定说”。前者获得了绝大多数学者和司法实务界人士的认同。第三章缺陷产品自身损害侵权法救济的理论基础。本章首先基于前两章的内容,对学说中存在的救济路径进行了反思,认为运用侵权责任法进行救济更为合适。其次,通过研究,认为运用《侵权责任法》41条产品责任之规定进行救济,存在着些许问题,特别是在处理其与《产品质量法》相关规定之间的关系以及是否会导致经营者责任过重的问题。文章对这一系列问题进行了分析,认为上述问题并不能够成为产品责任救济产品自身损害的障碍。最后,文章并不同意“折中说”的观点,认为折中说会造成“产品自身损害”概念不清,且造成体系混乱,不易定位。文章主张运用“缺陷”的概念来限制产品自损侵权法救济的范围,非因缺陷造成的产品自身损害则运用合同责任进行救济,并认为缺陷是导致的损害是对产品“物之完整性”的侵害,并阐述了运用“缺陷”作为限制的原因。第四章缺陷产品自身损害救济路径的具体构建。本章即以《侵权责任法》第41条之规定为基础,分析了产品自身损害侵权法保护的构成要件。其中,请求、义务主体、产品缺陷、损害与因果关系这五大要素是构成这一请求权的不可或缺的要件。其次,在此基础之上,结合本法第15条的规定,导出生产者、销售者对损失具有损害赔偿的义务。但对于产品缺陷造成的产品自身损害并非能够全部获得赔偿,应当根据生产者的可预见性,在“消费者”正常适用范围内的损失加以赔偿。而对于因转卖、盈利等营业造成的损失,因不具有可预见性,应当排除侵权法救济的范畴之外。综上所述,全文以缺陷产品自身损害的救济路径为索引,通过对纯粹经济损失排除规则的反思以及对各国的立法、司法实务中对传统民法的变革进行了梳理,同时结合我国立法、司法实践,认为运用《侵权责任法》第41条之规定,救济产品自身损害,并通过“产品缺陷”进行限制。不仅能有效的保护消费者,还能够平衡经销商和消费者之间各方利益,是比较适宜的救济思路。期能通过文章的梳理和撰写,形成比较适应我国的缺陷产品自身损害的救济路径。
[Abstract]:Since the promulgation of the tort liability law, the remedies of the defective products have been disputed continuously: on the one hand, the discrepancies in the judicial practice and the theoretical circles in our country are caused by the discrepancy between the law of tort liability and the provisions of the product quality law; on the other hand, the Reflection on the exclusionary rule of pure economic loss and the protection of consumers in the comparative law are on the other hand. Further strengthening, triggering the theory and practice of the major countries of the continental and Anglo American legal system to question and innovate the self damage relief mode of the defective products of the traditional civil law. To the defective product itself, the scholars have put forward two kinds of relief modes of tort and breach of contract. The former is the product itself by expanding the scope of the protection of the product liability of the empowered law. The damage is included in the range of the range of the tort liability, and the latter is the use of "transferable warranty liability", "express, implied warranty liability" and other theoretical tools, by reducing the requirements of the contract relativity, allowing consumers to claim responsibility directly to the producers. When adopting the way of expansion of the tort liability law, forty-first general product liability damages, not all "product damage" should be included in the scope of protection of the product liability, and the contract law and tort law should be reasonably distinguished from the "defect". At the same time, in the scope of compensation loss, the author thinks that not all The defective products can be compensable for their own damage. Only the producers' reasonable scope, and the damage caused by the consumer's private use, can be compensated. This article is divided into four chapters to study the problem: Chapter 1 the summary of the self damage of defective products. The product self damage is distinguished from other damage caused by product defects. Secondly, the theoretical basis of the rule of exclusive economic loss exclusionary rule in the traditional civil law is sorted out, and the two aspects of the exclusionary rules of the pure economic loss tort law, including the damage of the product itself, are reconsidered from the theoretical and practical aspects. The practice of revising the exclusionary rule of pure economic loss in the law of various countries is combed. There are two kinds of results in our country's judicial practice: one is to use traditional civil law and only allow consumers to claim liability for breach of contract. Two is the general provision of product liability, and the product self loss is included in the warranty of product liability. In terms of the scope of protection. From the number of the latter, the latter has become the general theory of our country. The remedies of the relief path in the second chapter are reviewed. In this chapter, the remedy path of the defects of the defective products in the comparative law is sorted. In general, the reform is mainly divided into the remedy path of the tort law and the remedy path of the use of the contract law. First, in the continental law system, the German judicial practice advocated that the product self loss was incorporated into the 823 general torts of German civil law through the "continuing erosive damage" theory, and was confirmed by a case. The French law allows consumers to claim directly to the producers through the "transferable liability for defects guarantee". In the law of Taiwan, in the law of China, although the precedents made earlier in the law of our country persist in the view of the traditional theory, there is a partial judgment that the damage of the product itself belongs to the business in recent years. Secondly, in the Anglo American law, most courts tend to use the "implied, implied warranty" of the product to solve it. It is believed that the consumer can claim the responsibility directly to the producer and affirm in the United States "the unified Commercial Code > the third" restatement of the tort law: the responsibility of the product. The behavior law remedies the self damage of the product. Finally, based on the method of comparative law, Chinese scholars have put forward the "affirmative theory" with the use of the tort law and the "negative theory" of the remedy of the use of the contract law respectively. The former obtains the identity of the overwhelming majority of scholars and the judicial practice circles. The third chapter of the defective product itself damages the tort law. In this chapter, based on the content of the first two chapters, this chapter rethinks the remedy path of the doctrine, and thinks that it is more appropriate to use the tort liability law for relief. Secondly, through the study, it is believed that there are some problems in the use of the provisions of ">41 product liability" in the tort liability law, especially in dealing with its and "production". The relationship between quality law and relevant regulations and the question of whether the operator is too heavy. The article analyzes this series of questions and thinks that the above problem can not be an obstacle to the product's self damage. Finally, the article does not agree with the "compromise" view, and thinks that the compromise said that the compromise will cause "production". The article asserts that the concept of "defect" is used to limit the scope of the remedy of the product self damage tort law, and the product self damage caused by the defect is remedied by the contract liability, and the defect is the damage to the product "property integrity". In this chapter, based on the forty-first provisions of the tort liability law, this chapter analyzes the components of the protection of the tort law of the product itself, which is based on the provisions of the forty-first provisions of the tort liability law. In this chapter, the request, the main body of the justice, the defect of the product, the damage to the causality and the causality are the five main parts of the fourth chapter. The element is an indispensable element of the claim. Secondly, on this basis, combining the provisions of the fifteenth article of this law, the producer and seller have the obligation to compensate for damages. However, the damage to the products caused by the product defects is not completely indemnification, and should be "eliminated" according to the predictability of the producer. The loss in the scope of the normal application is compensated. For the loss caused by resale, profit and other business, the scope of the remedy of tort law should be excluded because of the unforeseeable nature of the loss. In summary, the full text is indexed by the remedy path of the defective product itself, and through Reflection on the exclusionary rule of pure economic loss and the right The legislation and judicial practice of various countries have combed the reform of the traditional civil law. At the same time, combining with the legislation and judicial practice of our country, it is believed that the forty-first provisions of the tort liability law are used to relieve the damage of the product itself and to restrict the product through the "product defect". It can not only protect the consumers effectively, but also balance the dealers and the consumers. The interests of all parties are the more appropriate remedial ideas. It is hoped that through the collation and writing of the article, a remedial path more suitable for China's defective products'own damage can be formed.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】