美国产品责任法中的缺陷认定理论——兼论其对我国产品责任法的借鉴作用

【作者】 杨麟；

【导师】 王晓川；

【作者基本信息】 对外经济贸易大学 ， 国际经济法， 2000， 硕士

【摘要】 对于产品缺陷的认定是现代美国产品责任法的核心理论，有关产品责任的案件实际上都是从缺陷的认定开始，围绕缺陷的认定展开的。本文主要介绍美国法律中对产品缺陷认定的理论，同时比较中国法律中的相关规定，并提出笔者对完善我国产品缺陷认定理论的建议。缺陷认定理论的发展和产品责任法中严格责任制度的确立有密切的联系，因为在严格责任制度下，只要消费者能够证明1)产品存在缺陷；2)缺陷产品造成了损害；3)缺陷的存在和损害的发生存在着因果联系，该产品的生产者和销售者就必须承担赔偿责任，而无论其主观上是否存在着过失。这样原被告双方之间的争论焦点必然就集中在产品是否存在着缺陷上，缺陷认定理论由此得以丰富和发展。要认定产品有无缺陷，首先要研究缺陷的认定标准，即“产品要怎样安全才算足够安全”。美国产品责任法中运用三种认定标准：消费者预期标准、风险—效益标准以及贝克两分法。按照消费者预期标准，如果一个产品的安全性低于一个普通消费者的“合理预期”或是一个产品的危险性高于一个普通消费者的“合理预期”，该产品就是缺陷产品。在消费者预期标准下，关键在于结合具体案情认定什么是“合理预期”。风险—效益标准实际是经济学上的成本—收益分析法在产品责任法中的应用。按照该标准，缺陷产品造成的损害可以看作是社会为使用该种产品所付出的成本（代价），但使用该缺陷产品也可以为社会带来某种效益，如果成本超过了效益，则该产品对社会和消费者而言就是缺陷产品。反之，如果该产品带来的效益超过了其造成的损害，该损害会被认为是在可以允许的限度内，生产者不会被<WP=4>追究责任。消费者预期标准在实践中常常会“失灵”，在“明显缺陷”的案件中，如果危险（缺陷）是明显的，消费者能够发现缺陷的存在，消费者就难以依据“消费者预期标准”来要求生产者承担责任。为了加强对消费者的保护，美国产品责任法发展出了贝克两分法，贝克两分法对缺陷的认定分为两步，1)该产品安全性是否符合消费者的“合理预期”，即消费者预期标准是判定产品有无缺陷的下限；2)在不影响产品效用的情况下，生产者是否已将产品危险减至最低。即使产品缺陷是明显的，如果消除该缺陷的成本对生产者来说很小，生产者就有义务防止缺陷的产生，而不能在事故发生后主张“明显缺陷”要求免责。我国产品责任法对缺陷的认定有两个标准：不合理的危险标准和生产标准。不合理危险标准实际上就是消费者预期标准。生产标准是指某类产品的有关国家、行业标准，在有生产标准的情况下，如果产品不符合生产标准就是缺陷产品。但如何处理不合理的危险标准和生产标准的关系，也是我国产品责任法中一个颇具争议的问题。笔者认为在认定产品有无缺陷时，应将两个标准结合考虑，有生产标准的首先要依据生产标准判断，即使产品符合生产标准还要看其是否符合不合理危险标准。美国产品责任法中，产品缺陷根据缺陷产生的不同原因而分为制造缺陷、设计缺陷和警告缺陷三类。不同类型的产品缺陷案件往往适用不同的缺陷认定标准。在制造缺陷的案件中对生产者课以纯粹的严格责任，无论生产者在制造过程中是否善尽合理注意的义务，他都必须对其制造的缺陷产品负责。对于制造缺陷的认定主要有两种方法：消费者预期标准和不同于正常法则。在制造缺陷的案件中，由于产品常常毁于事故，消费者根本就无法对产品进行检验和取证以证明缺陷的存在，为了解决这一问题美国法院同意消费者在诉讼中采用“环境证据”。在设计缺陷的案件中主要采用风险—效益分析法来认定缺陷的存在与否。风险—效益的分析可以分为两步，第一步考虑该产品是否可以投入市场，即该产品对社会的效益要超过它所造成的风险，如果该产品可以投入市场还要考虑第二步，即是否该产品所具有的风险已被减至最低。为了证明产品设计缺陷的存在，原告往往会在诉讼中提出一个“替代设计”，提出“替代设计”是为了说明被告本来是可以用一个更为安全的设计代替现有的设计，将产品的危险减至最低，如<WP=5>果被告没有这样做就要承担相应的责任。警告缺陷指如果生产者未能就产品危险向消费者提出合理警告或指示其如何安全使用，那么生产者生产的产品就存在警告缺陷。警告的目的在于通过影响消费者的行为减少或避免损害的发生，所以判断一则警告是否充分有效的最终标准是该则警告能否对消费者的行为产生预期的影响。严格责任制度并不要求生产者作为产品安全的绝对保证者，因此在美国产品责任法中生产者可以主张下列抗辩事由：1)明显的危险；2)原告的过失行为；3)自然耗损；4)技术水平。明显危险抗辩的法理在于如果消费者能够意识到危险的存在，就可以主动采取措施避免危险的发生或是减轻损害的程度，如果消费者怠于采取措施就要自己承担由此造成的损害。原告的过失行为可以分为不当使用、自担风险和擅自变更三类。被告依据不当使用、自担风险和擅自变更的抗辩并不能完全免除责任，而只能减轻被告的赔偿责任。实践中法院往往通过比较双方的过失程度以决定被告所要承担的赔偿责任。自然耗损是指产品在正常情况下，由于自然力的作用或使用的原因?更多还原

【Abstract】 Defectiveness is the fundamental concept of U.S modern product liability law. Almost in all product liability litigation, the focus is whether there is a defect in charged product. This article gives a brief introduction on defectiveness theory in U.S product liability law, while comparing with China’s product liability law. At the end of this article, the author puts forward his own opinion on defectiveness theory in China’s product liability law.Defectiveness theory is a direct result of Strict Liability Theory. Under strict liability litigation, the producer will assume the compensation, if consumer can prove 1) there is a defect in charged product; 2) occurrences of certain damages; 3) the defect is the cause of damages, whether there is negligence on producer or not. So the battles between producer and consumer naturally should focus on defectiveness, which results in the enrichment and development of defectiveness theory.How safe is safe enough, there are three methods to test the defect of product: 1) consumer expectations test; 2) risk-benefit analysis; 3) Barker’s two-prong test.Under consumer expectations test, if the safety of a product can not reach the reasonable expectation of a common consumer, or the danger of a product exceeds the reasonable expectation of a common consumer, this product is a defect product. The key point of consumer expectations test is what the reasonable expectations is in each product liability case.Risk-benefit analysis is based on cost-benefit analysis that is widely used in economics. According to risk-benefit analysis, every product may cause certain damages to society, which can be looked as the cost paid by society for using this product, but even the defect product would have certain benefit or utility, so the society must balance the cost and the benefit of using certain product. If the cost exceeds the benefit, the product will be defined as defect product, if the benefit exceeds the cost, the damages caused by the product will be accepted by the society, the producer will not be blamed.<WP=7>In certain circumstance, consumer expectation test is ineffective, for instance, in the " obvious defectiveness" case, if a defect that caused the damages is obvious to the consumer, the injured consumer can’t claim the danger of defect product is beyond his expectation, so he can’t get the compensation. In order to avoid such unfair results, the courts developed the Barker’s two-prong test. Under Barker’s two-prong test, there are two steps to test the defect: 1) if the safety of the product complies with the "reasonable expectation" of consumer, that is, the consumer expectation is the floor of product safety; 2) if the producer has taken all available methods to reduce the risk of the product without derogating the utility of product. Even if the defect of product is obvious, the producer has the obligation to eliminate the obvious defect, if the cost of re-design is very low comparing with the damage caused by the defect product.According to China’s product liability law, there are two methods to test the defectiveness: unreasonable danger test and production criterion. Actually unreasonable danger test is the same with consumer expectation test, there is no material differences between two tests. Production criterion is made by the government or guild, which the producer must comply with while manufacturing his products. Under China’s product liability law, the fact that the product did not accord with the production criterion may prove that the product is defective. It’s still a disputing issue when the unreasonable danger test should apply and when the production criterion should apply.In U.S product liability law, the defectiveness of product can be classified into three groups: manufacturing defects, design defects and warning defects. Different test will apply to different defect. For instance in manufacturing defects case, the strict liability will apply, that is, the producer should be responsible for the damage caused by the defect更多还原