發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-25 21:12

  本文選題：產(chǎn)品缺陷 + 歸責(zé)原則��； 參考：《大連海事大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：缺陷產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的產(chǎn)品概念,不僅應(yīng)當(dāng)包括經(jīng)過(guò)加工、制造的,以銷(xiāo)售為目的的動(dòng)產(chǎn),未經(jīng)加工的初級(jí)農(nóng)產(chǎn)品、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)等也應(yīng)包括在內(nèi)。不僅包括物質(zhì)產(chǎn)品,也包括精神產(chǎn)品；不僅包括有形產(chǎn)品,也包括無(wú)形產(chǎn)品。產(chǎn)品缺陷關(guān)注的是產(chǎn)品的安全性,而產(chǎn)品瑕疵則注重產(chǎn)品的適用性。對(duì)于消費(fèi)者,產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的適用性影響的是生存質(zhì)量,產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的安全性卻關(guān)系到生存本身,安全性顯然大于重于適用性。產(chǎn)品缺陷的類(lèi)型除了傳統(tǒng)上的制造缺陷、設(shè)計(jì)缺陷及警示說(shuō)明缺陷外,尚包括跟蹤觀察缺陷。從而有利于督促生產(chǎn)者和銷(xiāo)售者根據(jù)最新的科技發(fā)展成果,持續(xù)追蹤自己投放到市場(chǎng)流通中的產(chǎn)品,以最大限度地保障產(chǎn)品的安全性,尤其是對(duì)于發(fā)展風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。關(guān)于缺陷產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則,應(yīng)當(dāng)基于危險(xiǎn)歸責(zé)理論來(lái)構(gòu)建解釋中國(guó)的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任歸責(zé),對(duì)生產(chǎn)者與銷(xiāo)售者均應(yīng)適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則。同時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)擴(kuò)大解釋生產(chǎn)者與銷(xiāo)售者的涵義。生產(chǎn)者不僅包括任何將自己的姓名、名稱(chēng)、商標(biāo)或可資識(shí)別的其他標(biāo)志體現(xiàn)在產(chǎn)品上,表示其為產(chǎn)品制造者的人,還包括為出售、出租、轉(zhuǎn)讓等營(yíng)業(yè)目的的“進(jìn)口商”。不僅包括成品的生產(chǎn)者,也包括零部件、原材料的生產(chǎn)者。銷(xiāo)售者除了傳統(tǒng)的以經(jīng)營(yíng)為目的,通過(guò)出售方式即單純的移轉(zhuǎn)所有權(quán)的方式銷(xiāo)售產(chǎn)品的人,還包括出租、融資租賃、易貨貿(mào)易以及保留所有權(quán)方式的產(chǎn)品銷(xiāo)售者。既包括產(chǎn)品的批發(fā)商,也包括產(chǎn)品的零售商,以及以其他方式向消費(fèi)者銷(xiāo)售產(chǎn)品的人�，F(xiàn)代侵權(quán)法的功能不僅限于對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)損害的填補(bǔ),而更在于對(duì)不法行為的預(yù)防和懲戒。懲罰性賠償責(zé)任制度突破了傳統(tǒng)民事?lián)p害賠償制度的一般原則,具備了傳統(tǒng)民事?lián)p害賠償制度所不具有的功能。懲罰性賠償制度引入侵權(quán)法,尤其是產(chǎn)品責(zé)任并不存在邏輯上的障礙。相反,懲罰性賠償制度的引入恰恰能夠在最大程度上發(fā)揮侵權(quán)法正義和效率的內(nèi)在價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:The concept of product in tort liability of defective products should include not only the movable property which has been processed and manufactured for the purpose of sale but also the unprocessed primary agricultural product and immovable property. Not only material products, but also spiritual products; not only tangible products, but also intangible products. Product defects focus on product safety, while product defects focus on product applicability. For consumers, the applicability of product quality affects the quality of life, but the safety of product quality is related to the survival itself, and the safety is obviously greater than that of applicability. The types of product defects include, in addition to traditional manufacturing defects, design defects and warning note defects, tracking and observation defects. Therefore, it is helpful to urge producers and sellers to keep track of the products they put into the market according to the latest scientific and technological achievements, so as to ensure the safety of the products to the maximum extent, especially for the development risks. Regarding the imputation principle of defective product infringement, we should construct and explain the product liability imputation in China based on the hazard imputation theory, and apply the strict liability principle to both producers and sellers. At the same time, the meaning of producer and seller should be expanded. A producer includes not only any person who embodies his name, name, trademark or other identifiable mark on the product, but also an "importer" for the purpose of selling, leasing, transferring and other business purposes. It includes not only the producers of finished products, but also the producers of components and raw materials. In addition to the traditional business as the purpose of the sale of products through the simple transfer of ownership, but also including rental, financial leasing, barter and retention-of-title means of product sellers. It includes wholesalers of products, retailers of products, and people who otherwise sell products to consumers. The function of modern tort law is not only to fill the actual damage, but also to prevent and punish the illegal act. The system of punitive damages breaks through the general principles of the traditional system of civil damages and has a function that the traditional system of civil damages does not. Punitive damages system introduces tort law, especially product liability, there are no logical obstacles. On the contrary, the introduction of punitive damages system can maximize the value of justice and efficiency of tort law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙鵬;對(duì)血液是否應(yīng)列入產(chǎn)品范圍的法律思考[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年12期

2 齊章安 ,庾國(guó)慶;兩大法系中產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1992年05期

3 朱克鵬 ,田衛(wèi)紅;論產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法上的產(chǎn)品缺陷[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1994年06期

4 梁慧星;中國(guó)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法——兼論假冒偽劣之根源和對(duì)策[J];法學(xué);2001年06期

5 張騏;中美產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法中產(chǎn)品缺陷的比較研究[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;1999年02期

6 朱克鵬，，田衛(wèi)紅;論我國(guó)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件及其完善[J];深圳大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1995年04期

7 董春華;;加拿大產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法及其對(duì)中國(guó)的啟示[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

8 北川善太郎,渠濤;網(wǎng)上信息、著作權(quán)與契約[J];外國(guó)法譯評(píng);1998年03期

9 江平;民法中的視為、推定與舉證責(zé)任[J];政法論壇;1987年04期

10 崔建遠(yuǎn);;物的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任的定性與定位[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2006年06期

本文編號(hào)：1802982