产品责任:欧洲视角的比较法评论

发布时间：2018-03-10 22:39

本文选题：产品责任　切入点：“合法期待”测试　出处：《北方法学》2014年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】："世界侵权法学会"设计的"刹车片故障案"、"被感染的血液案"和"桥梁垮塌案"三个虚构案例是为了从不同角度检验各个法域缺陷产品责任的适用范围和严格性。"合法期待"测试与"消费者期待"测试存在两方面的区别。适用于缺陷问题的"风险—效用"测试与适用于生产者过错问题的"风险—效用"测试之间存在重要区别。单一的理论不能对严格责任在现有产品责任法适用范围内提供正当性依据。产品责任是包含消费者法引以为据的典型正当性事由的自成一格的责任。对更广泛范围的人提供保护,可以基于普通人对市场销售或投入流通的产品不存在安全性方面的缺陷具有合理期待而正当化。
[Abstract]:The three fictional cases designed by the World Society of Tort Law, such as "brake brake failure case", "infected blood case" and "bridge collapse case", are designed to test the scope of application and strictness of liability for defective products in different jurisdictions from different angles. Sex. There are two differences between the "legitimate expectation" test and the "consumer expectation" test. There is a relationship between the "risk- utility" test applicable to defects and the "risk- utility" test applicable to producer fault problems. A single theory cannot provide justification for strict liability within the scope of application of the existing product liability law. Product liability is the sole responsibility that contains typical legitimate reasons cited by consumer law. Providing protection to a wider range of people, It can be justified on the basis that ordinary people have reasonable expectations that products sold or put into circulation do not have safety defects.
【作者单位】：英国Bristol大学法学院;四川大学法学院;中国人民大学民商事法律科学研究中心侵权法研究所;烟台大学中欧侵权法研究院;中国人民大学法学院;
【基金】：司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目“侵权法与劳动法双重视角下的使用人赔偿责任体系化研究”(项目编号12SFB3028)的资助
【分类号】：D75;DD913

【相似文献】