产品责任:欧洲视角的比较法评论

"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。

Product Liability Comparative Remarks from a European Perspective

The World Tort Law Society designs three Hypothetical Cases , namely the Brake Pad Failure Case , the Infected Blood Case and the Bridge Collapse Case , to test the application extension and strictness of liability for defect products of different jurisdictions from several perspectives .The Legitimate Expectation Test and Consumer Expectations Test are different in two aspects .There is a significant difference in the Risk -U-tility Test as applied to the question of defect and the Risk -Utility Test applied to the question of producer fault.There is no single , coherent theory that underpins strict product liability as it is today to be found around the globe.Product liability is a sui generis liability that embodies the reliance -based justifications that are typical of consumer law .The protection of broader class of persons can be justified by the idea that ordinary people have a reasonable expectation that goods sold on the market or otherwise put into circulation are free from safety defects .