論我國商品責任之請求權主體-消費者與第三人區別之必要性與正當性?-

因商品欠缺安全性致人於損害之損害填補法制，本文稱之為企業經營者應負擔之「商品責任」。我國特別就「商品責任」為明文規範者，始於民國八十三年一月十三日施行之消費者保護法。消保法商品責任係規定企業經營者負擔「無過失侵權責任」，其目的在於避免被害人依「契約責任」求償時，會遭遇「契約相對性」原則之抗辯；以及依「過失侵權責任」求償時，會遭遇舉證企業經營者主觀上「過失」之困難。然而，將商品責任規範於以保護特定身份對象（即消費者）為目的之消保法中，可能引發得依消保法商品責任請求賠償之「請求權主體」，限於「消費者」而不及於「非消費者」之疑慮。就此，我國消保法第七條第三項規定：「企業經營者違反前二項規定，致生損害於消費者或第三人時，應負連帶賠償責任。但企業經營者能證明其無過失者，法院得減輕其賠償責任。」依此規定，「消費者」與「第三人」均為消保法商品責任之「請求權主體」，惟二者之概念內涵，在我國學說與實務運作上，不僅不清楚，尚且發生混淆與互為矛盾之情形。本論文第一章將說明因「消費者」與「第三人」概念混淆不清所致之問題。首先，就「消費者」概念而言，學說與實務多數係以經濟學的觀點，定義「消費行為」。惟因「消費」概念過度抽象，「正面定義」並不容易，輔以「反面定義」亦不足以「充分」涵貍狾釩D消費行為。因此，我國學說與實務操作下之「消費者」概念，事實上並不明確。其次，就「第三人」概念而言，本文由商品責任之「歸責原理」出發，輔以「外國立法例」之啟示，不贊成若干學說與實務判決所採「限於企業經營者可預見之被害人」或「限於與消費者有關之被害人」之見解。賒Y非如此，不足以貫徹商品責任係立於「被害人」立場之損害填補法制之意旨。職是，本論文於第二章主張：消保法第七條第三項將商品責任之請求權主體區分為「消費者」與「第三人」，不僅沒有「必要性」，亦欠缺「正當性」。就有無區別之「必要性」部分，消保法第五十一條雖僅明文規定「消費者」得請求懲罰性賠償金，惟本文以為，由消保法第五十一條之規範意旨觀之，無論是「消費者」或「第三人」，均應有懲罰性賠償金請求權，故以懲罰性賠償金請求權之有無，作為「消費者」與「第三人」區別之實益，沒有「必要性」。就有無區別之「正當性」部分，因商品責任係以危險責任為其歸責原理，所重視者係應負擔賠償責任之「責任主體」是否係適格之「企業經營者」，至於因商品欠缺安全性而受有損害之「被害人」身分，並不重要。換言之，「第三人」之概念，即為「非消費者」；「消費者」與「第三人」概念之加總，即為「消費者」與「非消費者」概念之加總，亦即為「被害人」，故二者無區別之「正當性」。本論文所要強調者，係因學說與實務上對「消費者」與「第三人」概念認定上之不明確與不適當，造成實際判斷上之混淆不清，且以被害人「身分」上之差別區別其是否受商品責任法制之保護，亦欠缺正當性。因此，放棄「消費者」與「第三人」概念，不以被害人之身分為「消費者」抑或「第三人」而肯認或排除其損害賠償請求權，而最終僅以「適用要件」中各該要件作為判斷責任與否之依據，較為正當而且合理。因此，若如本論文所主張，在商品責任之「請求權主體」上不作任何限制，其結果亦未必會得出所有被害人「均得」依消保法商品責任請求賠償的結論。此點就如同民法第一八四條第一項前段，亦未就「被害人」之資格上為任何限制，但在其適用要件之檢討上，無論是「損害」、「不法性」、「因果關係」或「過失」等要件，均能發揮過濾、篩選最終享有損害賠償請求權之被害人的弁遄C 故消保法第七條第三項將「第三人」與「消費者」並列為受保護之被害人之立法，雖造成實際解釋適用上之困難。惟依本論文見解，「第三人」之規定實有「畫龍點睛」之效用，趕茷~責任置於以保護消費者為規範目的之消保法中，本即有其不妥之處，然而因立法將「第三人」與「消費者」同時並列為請求權主體，且未對「第三人」概念為任何明文定義，在透過如本文將「第三人」概念解釋為所有「非消費者而受有損害之被害人」下，將可得出「所有被害人」，無論其為「消費者」抑或「第三人」，均為「消保法商品責任」之請求權主體的結論。因此，我國消保法第七條第三項雖然在法條體例上似乎「突兀」地將「第三人」同時列為請求權主體，但卻也留給解釋法條者一個空間，得以藉此調整修正將商品責任置於消保法中，所產生之制度「錯置」上的困難，某程度也算是「立意良善」。正因本論文主張消保法商品責任於「請求權主體」上不應設限，故其與民國八十九年五月五日修正施行之民法第一九一條之一商品責任之請求權主體領域，完全相同。從而發生因我國商品責任規範「雙軌制」下，消保法與民法商品責任於競合上解釋之重大困難。在「解釋論」上，本文認為消保法與民法商品責任規範上最大的差異，在於「推定過失之有無」、「因果關係之舉證責任」以及「懲罰性賠償金請求權」三點，解釋上應力求消彌不必要之區別與差異。在「立法論」上，「單軌制」的商品責任法是最終目標。此時，無論係以「特別法」之模式將商品責任單獨立法，或將之直接規範於「民法」之中，甚至將其置之於「消費者保護法」中，均無不可。惟不論如何，商品責任之「請求權主體」上，不應區分「被害人」之資格而為差別待遇。最後，本文以為，面對現代損害賠償態樣之多元化，是否應將某些事件類型，尤其是「意外事故」損害填補法制，由傳統立於「加害人」立場為思考點的「過失侵權責任法制」，轉變為立於「被害人」立場為思考點的「無過失危險責任法制」，且應避免受到過失責任概念之干擾與混淆，我國的商品責任法制之發展，或閉O個最好的契機。

關鍵字

消費者保護法第七條；安全或衛生上之危險；消保法第七條；第三人；消費者；消保法；商品責任；消費者保護法

並列摘要

“Products Liability”, with which business operators can be charged, is the legal system of the indemnification of loss caused by goods not in compliance with safety standards. Enacted on January 13, 1994, Consumer Protection Law of R.O.C. firstly regulates “Products Liability”. Under Consumer Protection Law, business operators are stipulated to bear “no-fault liability”. The purpose is to assist the victims to avoid the defence of "privity of contract" while asking for indemnity based on "contractual liability", and also the difficulties that may arise in giving proof of the subjective “negligence” of the business operators while making claims under “fault liability”. However, the fact that the “Products Liability” regulated in Consumer Protection Law can only be applied to protect specific individuals (namely the consumers) may limit the “subject” entitled to claim indemnity in accordance with provisions of “Products Liability” in Consumer Protection Law to “consumers” only, but not to “non-consumers”. In terms of this limitation, Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of R.O.C. Consumer protection Law regulates that “Business operators violating the foregoing two paragraphs and thus causing injury to consumers or third parties shall be jointly and severally liable therefor, provided that if business operators can prove that they are not guilty of negligence, the court may reduce their liability for damages.” Under this quoted provision, both “consumers” and “the third party” are the “subjects” of the “Products Liability” in Consumer Protection Law; nevertheless, the concepts of these two terms are not only ambiguous, but are often confusing and conflicting both in practice and in theory of R.O.C. law. Chapter I of this Thesis discusses the current trend of, and problems arising from, the “consumer” and “third-party” distinction. Firstly, the concept of “consumer” is not definite in that “consuming behavior” is mostly defined from the view of economics both in theory and in practice of law, where the concept of “consuming” is too abstract to be defined either positively, or with the supplement of “negative conditions” to cover all consuming behaviors. Thus, the concept of “consumer” remains, in reality, unclear. Secondly, with respect to the concept of “the third party”, this Thesis starts from the “Imputation Principle” of the Products Liability, supplemented with the inspiration of “foreign legislation”, and dissaprove of the opinions adopted in some theory and court judgments that “victims” should be limitated to “those foreseeable by business operators” or “those having connection with the consumer.” If these opinions are not rejected, the purpose for which Products Liability was made--to make up for the damage on the position of the “victims”— will not be fulfilled. Therefore, Chapter II of this Thesis argues that the differentiation of the subjective between “consumer” and “the third party” in Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of Consumer Protection Law is not only void of “necessity”, but lacks “validity” as well. In terms of “necessity”, it is proclaimed in writing in Article 51 of Consumer Protection Law that only the “consumer” may claim punitive damage. However, viewed from the intention of Article 51 of Consumer Protection Law, both the “consumer” and “the third party” should be entitled to claim punitive damage. As a result, it is rendered unnecessary to differentiate the “consumer” from “the third party” by deciding whether a claimant receives entitlement to claim punitive damage or not. In terms of “validity”, since the imputation principle of products liability is based on risk liability, what matters is whether the subject charged for indemnity is qualified as “business operators”, instead of the categorization of the “victim” of the hazardous goods. In other words, the concept of “the third party” refers to “non-consumer”; that is, the unification of the concept “consumer” and “the third party” is equivalent to that of the concept “consumer” and “non-consumer”, namely the “victim”. Therefore the differentiation lacks “validity”. This thesis emphasizes that the vague and inappropriate distinction of the concept of the “consumer” and “the third party” espoused in theory and in practice of law results in the confusion of judgment in practice; and that it lacks validity to distinguish whether the victim is protected by the legal system of Products Liability or not by the “categorization” of the victim. As a consequence, the concept of the “consumer” and “the third party” should be abandoned when we are to grant or deny entitlement to claim indemnity. Rather, it is proper and reasonable to determine the liability according to the required elements, rather than to whether the categorization of the victim is the “consumer” or “the third party”. It is not a necessary conclusion that all victims will be “entitled” to claim indemnity according to Products Liability in Consumer Protection Law by imposing no limitation to the “subject” of Products Liability. Similar result can be seen from former part of Paragraph 1 of Article 184 of the Civil Code. Although there is no limitation to the qualification of the “victim”, those required elements such as “damage”, “illegitimacy”, “casual relationship”, or “negligence”, all serve as filters to sift the victim not entitled to claim indemnity out when reviewing the applicable conditions. Although including both “the third party” and the “consumer” under the protection of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of Consumer Protection Law makes the explanation and application in practice difficult, the term “the third party” does add the finishing touch. Although it is inappropriate to place Products Liability in Consumer Protection Law since its purpose is to protect the consumers, it is regulated that both “the third party” and the “consumer” are the subject.,Since the concept of “the third party” is not proclaimed in writing, by adopting interpreting “the third party” as all “non-consumer victims suffering from damage”, we can reach the conclusion that “all victims”, either the “consumer” or “the third party”, are the subject of “Products Liability in Consumer Protection Law”. In this way, while Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of Consumer Protection Law seemingly “obtrusively” lists “the third party” as the subject, it in fact spares room for those who are to explain the articles. It also considerately makes up for the difficulties that may arise due to the “misplacement” of Products Liability in Consumer Protection Law. Seen from this standpoint, the inclusion of the “third party” is in fact a judicious move on the legislature’s part. Chapter II, Section A of this Thesis explores the potential difficulty in attempting to interpret concurrent regulations if, as this Thesis states that there should not be limitations to Products Liability on the “subject” in Consumer Protection Law, which is identical with the domain of the Products Liability of the subject in Article 191-1 of the Civil Code amended and enacted on May 5, 2000. It results in the major difficulties in explaining Products Liability taking both Consumer Protection Law and the Civil Code into consideration under the “double-track system” of regulation in our law. From an interpretiveist viewpoint, the three major differences between Products Liability in Consumer Protection Law and that in the Civil Code are 1) the requirement of presumption of negligence; 2) the burden of proof on casual relationship; and 3) the right of claim for punitive damage. Unnecessary differentiation and variance should be eliminated in explanation. From a policy-maker’s standpoint, the ultimate goal of the regulations on Products Liability is to create a “one-track system” of regulations. It can be achieved by following the example of “special law” to solely legislate Products Liability, or by regulating Products Liability in the Civil Code, or even by placing Products Liability in “Consumer Protection Law”. Whichever approach is taken, we should not differentiate the qualification of the “victim” and give different treatment accordingly on the subject of Products Liability. Finally, in view of the diverse types of indemnity for damage nowadays, this Thesis suggests that we should consider a shift from “legal system of fault liability” on the “inflictor” side to “legal system of non-fault liability” on the “victim” side in cerrain types of cases, specifically in legal system of compensation for damage due to “contingency”, and avoid the confusion and interference resulting from the concept of fault liability. It might be an opportunity for the development of our legal1 system of Products Liability.