臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：從美國商品責任法論我國消保法商品責任之客觀歸責事由
書刊名：中原財經法學
作者：吳淑莉 引用關係
作者(外文)：Wu, Shu-li
出版日期：2015
卷期：35
頁次：頁1-46
主題關鍵詞：商品責任；嚴格責任；科技抗辯；製造上瑕疵；設計上瑕疵；警告上瑕疵；Products liability；Strict liability；State of the art；Manufacturing defect；Design defect；Warning defect
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:5
我國消保法第7條所規定之商品責任，乃以商品缺陷為法律上的歸責事由。而釐清商品缺陷之認定標準以及舉證責任之分配，以課予適當賠償責任，除能使受損害之消費者獲得賠償，更有助於企業經營者提供安全商品之動力，進而使消費環境趨於安全。 為釐清商品缺陷之認定標準，本文首先研究美國商品責任法，構成嚴格責任之理論，並探究判例法具體事實中如何認定商品是否有製造上、設計上或警告上瑕疵，以及科技抗辯證據於商品製造上、設計上或警告上瑕疵之意義。再研究我國實務上法院適用法律上的客觀歸責事由以及舉證責任分配之爭議，對照美國實務上已形成之認定瑕疵商品之各種標準，分析其論證基礎，建議適當之認定標準，供立法與實務參酌。
In order to protect the right of consumers, Article 7 of Taiwan Consumer Protection Act imposes liability on manufacturers who provide any merchandise in a defective condition to any user or consumer without regard to fault. However, such liability is not absolute, so manufacturers are only held liable for the harm caused by merchandise in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer given the state of scientific knowledge and technical expertise. Thus, it is particularly significant to clarify legal standards in determining defectiveness of merchandise and to appropriately allocate the burden of proof in order to promote product safety in addition to compensating victims. Therefore, to establish appropriate legal standards, this Article reviews U.S. Products Liability Law, the doctrine of strict liability, and examines case law regarding legal standards to determine defectiveness in the context of design, manufacturing, and warning defects. Also, it explains how state of the art evidence is applied to these three types of product defects. It also discusses cases that deal with issues concerning burden of proof allocation and the application of objective attributable causes of products liability under Taiwan Consumer Protection Act. Finally, by studying U.S. case law with regard to legal tests of determining defectiveness of a product and by analyzing the related rationale, it offers some suggestions on legal tests that should be employed in courts and legislatures in Taiwan to determine the products liability of manufacturers.
期刊論文
1.吳瑾瑜(20100315)。馮京或馬涼？瑕疵擔保或產品責任？--淺析最高法院九八年度臺上字第一三五六號判決。臺灣法學雜誌，148，199-203。  延伸查詢new window
2.曾品傑(20120600)。臺灣商品責任法之發展--以消費者保護法上之商品責任為中心。成大法學，23，1-33。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.謝哲勝(20130900)。現行商品責任規範的檢討。臺北大學法學論叢，87，59-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Ausness, Richard C.(2012)。"Fasten Your Seat Belt, Orville!": Exploring the Relationship between State-of-the-Art, Technological and Commercial Feasibility, and the Restatements Reasonable Alternative Design Requirement。IND. L. REV.，45，669-717。  new window
5.Funkhouser, Kevin(2013)。Paving the Road Ahead: Autonomous Vehicles, Products Liability, and the Need for A New Approach。UTAH L. REV.，2013，437-462。  new window
6.Knaier, Robert G.(2003)。An Informed-Choice Duty to Instruct? Liriano, Burke, and the Practical Limits of Subtle Jurisprudence。CORNELL L. REV.，88，814-854。  new window
7.Owen, David G.(2002)。Manufacturing Defects。S. C. L. REV.，53，851-905。  new window
8.Owen, David G.(2008)。Design Defects。Missouri Law Review，73(2)，291-368。  new window
9.Owen, David G.(2010)。Bending Nature, Bending Law。Fla. L. Rev.，62，569-615。  new window
10.Reynolds, Rexford M.、Sunahara, Michele(1989)。Johnson v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.: The Death of State of the Art Evidence in Strict Products Liability Cases Involving Inherently Dangerous Products。U. HAW. L. REV.，11，175-197。  new window
11.Robb, Gary C.(1982)。A Practical Approach to Use of State of the Art Evidence in Strict Products Liability Cases。NW. U. L. REV.，77，1-33。  new window
12.Twerski, Aaron D.、Henderson, James A. Jr.(2009)。Manufacturers' Liability for Defective Product Designs: The Triumph of Risk-Utility。BROOK. L. REV.，74，1061-1108。  new window
13.Vandall, Frank J.(1994)。State-of-the-Art, Custom, and Reasonable Alternative Design。SUFFOLK U. L. REV.，28，1193-1203。  new window
14.Vetri, Dominick(2009)。Order Out of Chaos: Products Liability Design-Defect Law。University of Richmond Law Review，43，1373-1457。  new window
15.吳從周(20130300)。臺灣商品責任之實體與程序主要爭議現況--特別聚焦檢討舉證責任分配之實務案例。月旦法學，214，69-97。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.陳忠五(20030900)。二○○三年消費者保護法商品與服務責任修正評論--消費者保護的「進步」或「退步」？。臺灣本土法學雜誌，50，24-69。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Owen, David G.、Montgomery John E.、Davis, Mary J.(2007)。Products Liability and Safety : Cases and Materials。New York, NY：Foundation Press。  new window
2.邱聰智、姚志明(2014)。新訂民法債編通則。承法數位文化。  延伸查詢new window
3.林益山(2008)。消費者保護法。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
4.FISCHER, DAVID A.(2006)。PRODUCTS LIABILITY: CASES AND MATERIALS。St. Paul, MN：Thomson：West。  new window
5.HENDERSON, JAMES A. JR.、TWERSKI, AARON D.(2011)。PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PROBLEMS AND PROCESS。New York, NY：Aspen Publishers。  new window
6.OWEN, DAVID G.(2008)。PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW。St. Paul, MN：Thomson：West。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：409（臺灣：401，外國：8） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2156165 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67966752
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上