摘要
通过对中国34个产品自损案件和美国49个产品自损案件进行比较,发现商业关系规则、纯粹经济损失规则及"以危险方式致产品自损"规则是影响产品自损能否依侵权法进行救济的关键因素。中国法院不排除商业关系之诉,很少采纳纯粹经济损失规则,认定不合理危险缺陷导致的产品自损,可依产品责任获赔。美国法院先排除商业关系之诉,在此基础上,绝大多数法院依纯粹经济损失规则拒绝产品自损的侵权法救济,中间派法院认可危险方式导致产品的自损可依侵权法救济,少数派法院允许产品故障的自损依侵权法救济。中国受害人在产品自损领域获赔的可能性更高,与美国受害人在其他产品致害领域的优势形成鲜明对比。
The comparison between Chinese 34 damage damage to the product cases and American 49 to the product itself cases indicates that the commercial relationship rule, pure economic loss rule and ＂causing damages to the product itself in dangerous way＂ rule are the most important factors which affect whether the damage to the product itself could get remedy through tort law. Chinese courts usually don＇t exclude the claims of the commercial parties and are reluctant to apply the pure economic rule but would like to confirm the existence of unreasonably dangerous defect and permit the damage to the product itself to get tort remedy. American court excludes commercial relationship litigation first and the majority courts would apply the pure economic loss rule to bar the tort remedy, the intermediate approach courts prefer to give the tort remedy for the minority courts confirm the get compensation and more are more likely to get more damage to product itself in dangerous way, the tort remedy without special limitation. Chinese consumers are more likely to protection in damage to the product itself area while the American consumers compensation in general product liability area.
出处
《比较法研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第1期126-139,共14页
Journal of Comparative Law
基金
司法部国家法治与法学理论研究课题"产品自身损害赔偿研究"(13SFB3027)的阶段性成果
关键词
产品自损
商业关系
纯粹经济损失
危险方式致害
damage to product itself
pure economic loss
commercial relationship
causing damage in dangerous way
