論商品安全性欠缺

Thesis on Defect of Products

張譯文(Yi-Wen Chang)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.01777

摘要

在傳統「過失責任主義」之大旗下，唯有不法行為人有過失時，始應負損害賠償之責。然而，當商品事故日漸頻繁，傳統民事責任體系卻無法得出令人滿意之結論時，一套獨立的商品責任自然應運而生。
　　在高度分工的消費社會之中，消費者往往未能擁有足夠專業知識，無法認識商品所隱含的潛在危險。在此背景之下，消費者只能依據商品之通常使用方法加以消費，也只能相信此種商品消費模式不致於發生損害。為維持社會分工機制之運作，法律制度作為生活行為分際之維繫者，自應保護此種對於分工社會之信賴，並以此指導原則分配商品事故之損害風險。
　　我國民法第191-1條以及消費者保護法第7條等規定，立法目的均在於保護此種分工社會之信賴，顛覆傳統過失責任主義之原則。上開兩條商品責任之相關規定，確實擺脫向來以「人的行為」作為歸責基礎之責任體系，判斷重點反而落在「物的狀態」之上，商品安全性是否有欠缺成為重要議題。
　　商品安全性欠缺之概念，應係指商品未具備一定之商品安全狀態。由社會分工信賴之角度出發，此種商品安全狀態之判斷標準應為：一般消費者對於系爭商品安全性之期待。詳言之，倘若商品已符合一般消費者安全性之期待者，系爭商品之狀態已為消費者所知悉，商品危險亦已為消費者所認識；此時，縱令商品終致損害結果，本於自我負責之原則，相關風險應由消費者自行承擔。反之，倘若商品未能符合一般消費者安全性之期待者，系爭商品之狀態無法為一般消費者所知悉，消費者亦未認識商品之危險性；此時，商品致生之損害結果顯已違反一般消費者對於商品之想像與信賴，製造人則應負損害賠償責任。
　　最後，為使「一般消費者期待」得以操作，提出若干參酌因素確有其必要。我國消費者保護法施行細則第5條之中，立法者列出「商品之標示說明」、「商品可期待之合理使用」與「商品流通進入市場之時期」等參考因素。除此之外，與商品安全相關之法令規定與檢驗標準、商品種類，甚至當時科技及專業水準等事由，均可能影響一般消費者對於商品安全性期待之認定。惟應併予強調者，以上所列舉之事由，不過屬於「參考因素」之一種，任一因素均無決定性之影響，安全性欠缺之論斷仍應回歸「消費者期待」標準為要！

關鍵字

安全性欠缺 ； 過失責任 ； 危險責任 ； 消費者期待 ； 發展上危險 ； 發展上漏洞 ； 科技抗辯

並列摘要

Person who wrongfully damaged others' rights only need to take responsibility in negligence situation under the tradition pretext of “negligence liability”. However, “product accident” becomes more frequently happened, we still do not find the suita-ble solution for it in the tradition legal system. It also breeds the individual “product liability” systems.
In the high-division-of-labor of consumer society, consumers have no enough professional knowledge for avoiding the potential risk of products. Under this background, they could only do consumption by usual use or consumption and trust the products would not cause any damages. For continuing mechanism for division of labor, law system as important system for keeping people’s life in suitable way should protect this trust for division of labor among people. And it should be principal for dispersing the damage risk of product accident.
The purpose of Civil Law Article 191-1 and Consumer Protection Law Article 7 is that protect this kind of trust for division of labor and overthrow an negligence liabil-ity. These two Articles really get out of the system, which always attribute responsi-bility to human behavior. It would induce the judgment would come to safety of products”, so defect of products would become important issues.
Defect of products would mean that products do not meet the standard of the rea-sonably expected safety. Based on trust for division of labor, this standard of the safety would be: normal consumer expectation for safety. In detail, if the product has accordance with the expectation, the condition of product is widely known by con-sumer, and even risk as well. It will make consumer take those risk according principal of self-responsibility, when the product causes the damage. In the other hand, if product would not reach the anticipation of consumer for product safety, the condi-tion of product is not widely known by consumer, and consumer have no knowledge for the risk. Damage resulted from the products has already break the trust of the nor-mal consumer; the product manufacturers should take this responsibility.
Finally, for conducting the “normal consumer expectation”, we need some im-portant to consider.The Enforcement Rules of Consumers Protection Law Article 5, legislators show the “the presentation of the product”, “the use to which it could rea-sonably be expected that the product would be put”, and “the time when the product was put into circulation” as the factors. Besides, the regulations of safety of products, kind of products, and the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation could all influence the consideration for the safety of product. Furthermore, all examples above are only one of “factors”, and any one of factor has no decisive influence for it. We should go back to “expectation of consum-ers” for the principal of defect safety.

並列關鍵字

defect ； negligence liability ； non-negligence liability ； strict liability ； expectation of consumer ； state of the art

參考文獻

林幸怡（2010），《醫療機構之民事責任》，國立台灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文

周漾沂（2005），《被害人自陷風險對於行為人不法之作用》，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文

林宗穎（2009），《被害人與有過失之研究》，國立台灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文

宋泓璟（2011），《不可抗力之研究》，國立台灣大學法律學院研究所碩士論文

簡資修（2004），〈可合理期待之安全性的經濟分析：命令管制或交易誘因？〉，《律師雜誌》，299期