論經銷業者之商品責任

關於經銷業者的商品責任，向來是個冷門且受到忽視的議題，在學說上，並未特別引起討論，在實務上，被害人也較少就商品造成的損害，向經銷業者請求損害賠償。然而，在現代社會的變動下，商品的供應鏈流程日益複雜，經銷業者的重要性已不可同日而語，甚至具有主導商品的地位，尤其，台灣社會近年來重大商品事故頻傳，甚可發現經銷業者與製造業者間，並無特殊差異，因此，「經銷業者責任」實值深入分析及研究。本文首先就現行法進行分析，針對「責任主體」、「適用領域」、「法律性質」及「責任成立」等四項議題進行探討：第一，在「責任主體」層次，「經銷商品」是一種不涉及商品內容或性質，將商品「流通銷售」於消費者的事實上、客觀上行為；如企業經營者基於「主動地位」而「流通商品」，且對商品具有「選擇機會」，即屬於「經銷業者」，並不以「買賣商品」為必要。第二，在「適用領域」層次，本文指出「消費關係」與「非消費關係」並無區別保護的必要性或正當性，在商品事故中，只要被害人因商品欠缺安全性而受有損害，均得依消保法第8條第1項規定，向經銷業者請求損害賠償。第三，在「法律性質」層次，基於理論基礎、規範模式、體系編排、立法理由與立法資料、規範目的等因素的綜合考量，現行消保法第8條第1項「經銷業者責任」應屬「推定過失責任」。第四，在「責任成立」層次，針對「商品安全性欠缺」，嚴格以「商品開始流通時」作為「判斷時點」，並非妥適，有必要目的性擴張消保法施行細則第5條第3款規定，改以「商品交付消費者之時期」或「損害發生之時期」作為「判斷時點」；另就「過失」而言，部分法院判決過度強調「危險控制能力」觀點，寬鬆認定過失不成立，此將架空消保法「經銷業者責任」的規範功能，部分法院判決著眼於「被害人保護」觀點，要求經銷業者與製造業者負擔相同責任，不僅混淆「安全性欠缺」與「過失」的概念，亦缺乏說理及論證。進而，本文反省立法者所採「危險控制能力」觀點，並重新建構「經銷業者責任」的理論基礎：第一，立法者將消保法「經銷業者責任」設計為「推定過失責任」，在「事實認定」層面，不僅忽略了經銷業者在行銷階段的危險控制能力，亦忽略經銷業者所具有的通路地位；在「價值判斷」層面，危險責任的理論基礎，無法一概套用於現行商品責任法，「危險控制能力」至多僅能定位為「參考因素」，而非「無過失商品責任」的必要條件。依此，立法者在「事實認定」及「價值判斷」上，其實有所誤會，現行消保法第8條第1項規定並不具充分的正當性。第二，本文另從「分散損害」、「預防損害」及「填補損害」等三個層面，重新建構「經銷業者責任」的理論基礎：經銷業者既得以預先規劃分散損害，課予其「無過失責任」即具有正當性，如將經銷業者責任設計為「推定過失責任」，反而無法有效預防損害，亦無助於迅速、簡易地填補被害人的損害。本文在結論上指出「經銷業者」與「製造業者」同樣屬於整體產銷結構的一環，不應特別加以區分，建議刪除現行消保法第8條規定，並修正第7條第1項規定，由「經銷業者」與「製造業者」同負「無過失商品責任」。

關鍵字

消費者保護法；商品責任；企業經營者；經銷；過失責任；危險責任；危險控制能力

並列摘要

In Taiwan, product liability of distributors has long been an unattended issue. Neither did scholars attempt to shed more lights on it; nor seldom did the plaintiffs suffered damage by defective products actually contended against any distributors for compensation. As our fast-changing, modern society complicated the supply chain of products, distributors play a much important role, sometimes even with a dominant position in the chain. Noticeably, as Taiwan news media frequently reports several serious product accidents in recent years, people started to realize that there seems to be not much special difference between the distributors and the manufacturers. Because of this significance, the issue of distributors’ product liability should be worthy of further research. This Thesis proceeded the analysis from four aspects: subject of responsibility, applicableness, legal nature, and establishment of responsibility, respectively. First, from the aspect of “subject of responsibility”. “Distributing products” is an objectively de facto action that had nothing to do with the content or nature of products. If a business enterprise takes the initiative to both distribute and stand in the position to select products, it should be deemed as a “distributor”, irrespective of “selling” the products. Second, regarding the “applicableness”, the line between “consumer relations” and “non-consumer relations” might not be of much value nor legitimacy. As long as victims suffer damages because of defective products, they shall be allowed to raise damages claims against distributors pursuant to Article 8, Paragraph 1 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “CPA”). Third, this part explored into the "legal nature" of the liability. This part surveyed the theoretical ground, normative model, context interpretation, legislative reasons, legislation materials as well as the normative purpose. All in all, distributors’ product liability in Article 8, Paragraph 1 of CPA should be the presumed-negligence liability. Next, the fourth part focused on “establishment of responsibility”. It began with the element “defect”. Instead of maintaining the current criteria of “the time when placing the products into the stream of commerce”; this Thesis held it would be necessary to expand the scope of Article 5, Sub-paragraph 3 of Enforcement Rules of CPA, and either make “the time of delivering products to consumers” or “the time when damage occurred” as the “time criteria” for judgement. Additionally, concerning the element of “negligence”, some courts overly-amplified the view of “risk-control ability”, and loosely concluded some distributors in some disputed cases were not negligent. Yet, this approach would likely undermine the normative function on distributors’ product liability. Meanwhile, other courts accentuated the view of “victim protection”. Under such a stricter standard, they thereby held other distributors should be as much liable as manufacturers. However, this point not only mistakenly equated “defect” with “negligence” but also lacked reasoning to a proper extent. Next, the second half of this Thesis reviewed the viewpoint of risk control ability that adopted by the legislator, in order to reconstruct the theoretical basis of distributors’ product liability. As a starter, legislators imposed “presumed-negligence liability” on distributors. Factually, legislators neglected both distributors’ lack of risk control ability in marketing activities and the distributors’ status in supply chains. Normatively, still, “risk-control ability” should be treated as a "reference factor" rather than a necessary requirement for the liability. Accordingly, legislators failed to correctly discern the facts as well as properly understand the normative judgement. Thus, Article 8, Paragraph 1 of CPA is insufficiently justified. Further, this Thesis reconstructs the theoretical basis of distributors’ product liability from three pillars: “damage allocation”, “damage prevention”, and “compensation”. Since distributors are able to plan to allocate damages in advance, their “strict liability” is hereby justified. On the contrary, if their product liability were a “presumed-negligence liability”, its normative function cannot effectively prevent damages nor compensate victims promptly and conveniently. To summarize, this Thesis proposed that because both distributors and manufacturers are integral parts of the mass production-and-marketing system, they should not be treated indiscriminately. Additionally, Article 8 of CPA should be deleted; meanwhile Article 7, Paragraph 1, CPA should be adjusted so distributors and manufacturers alike would both bear “strict liability”.