本文選題：產(chǎn)品自損　切入點(diǎn)：侵權(quán)責(zé)任說　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：社會(huì)不斷發(fā)展，，高度發(fā)達(dá)的科技支撐下的產(chǎn)品價(jià)值也越來越大，產(chǎn)品自身損失的賠償對(duì)當(dāng)事人的意義不容小覷。而法律法規(guī)對(duì)于解決這類案件的指導(dǎo)作用卻越發(fā)滯后，關(guān)于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的法律法規(guī)相互之間規(guī)定的不一，對(duì)于現(xiàn)實(shí)中所產(chǎn)生的產(chǎn)品損害的救濟(jì)缺乏可操作性，給受害者（消費(fèi)者）和法官在實(shí)際的司法過程中造成了困擾。在衡陽石鼓化工部訴湖北富華汽車公司、程力汽車公司產(chǎn)品損害賠償一案中，原告化工經(jīng)營部買賣罐體車的合同是一個(gè)連環(huán)合同，先與銷售者簽訂合同，再由銷售者與生產(chǎn)者簽訂合同。由于被告富華公司交付的罐體車存在缺陷，導(dǎo)致原告在運(yùn)營過程中產(chǎn)生一系列損失，其中最主要的就是罐體車的自身損失以及貨物的損失，原告就這些損失起訴了銷售者和生產(chǎn)者，一審法院認(rèn)為，銷售者和生產(chǎn)者的責(zé)任屬于競合，釋明原告就生產(chǎn)者提起侵權(quán)之訴，僅起訴生產(chǎn)者，原告遂撤消了對(duì)銷售者的起訴。當(dāng)事人雙方對(duì)于案件的爭議焦點(diǎn)是：原告認(rèn)為對(duì)于兩部分損失都要求生產(chǎn)者承擔(dān)，認(rèn)為損失是由于生產(chǎn)者交付的罐體車不符合規(guī)定而造成的；而被告則認(rèn)為根據(jù)產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量法的規(guī)定，自己無須承擔(dān)對(duì)產(chǎn)品自損的責(zé)任。為了界定產(chǎn)品自損的性質(zhì)，聯(lián)系了純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)利益損失的內(nèi)涵，兩者在定義的闡述、表現(xiàn)形式和特點(diǎn)上都有重合的地方，據(jù)此認(rèn)定產(chǎn)品自損的性質(zhì)為契約責(zé)任，應(yīng)當(dāng)由合同法予以救濟(jì)。但是，我國當(dāng)前對(duì)于產(chǎn)品自損以及缺陷產(chǎn)品以外的損失和人身損失采用的區(qū)別制遭遇我國的請(qǐng)求權(quán)競合時(shí)所導(dǎo)致的損害得不到完全賠償，反思兩類損失是否屬于請(qǐng)求權(quán)競合，結(jié)合請(qǐng)求權(quán)競合的相關(guān)規(guī)定得出產(chǎn)品自損和他損并非請(qǐng)求權(quán)競合，自損和他損理應(yīng)的到完全賠償。但綜觀我國目前的法律法規(guī)，對(duì)于產(chǎn)品自損的賠償缺乏有效的解決方法，通過對(duì)學(xué)界主張的幾種主要的解決方法的利弊權(quán)衡，得出了把產(chǎn)品自損納入到侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)的框架下予以賠償?shù)慕Y(jié)論，這對(duì)于法院和受害人都是合理高效的解決辦法，我國應(yīng)當(dāng)以此為主要內(nèi)容出臺(tái)司法解釋，完善產(chǎn)品自損案件的審判依據(jù)。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of society, the value of products under the support of highly developed science and technology is also increasing, and the significance of compensation for the loss of products themselves cannot be underestimated.However, the guiding role of laws and regulations in solving such cases is increasingly lagging behind. The laws and regulations on product liability differ from each other, and there is a lack of maneuverability to remedy the product damage caused in reality.For victims (consumers) and judges in the actual judicial process caused trouble.In the case of Hengyang Shigu Chemical Industry Ministry v. Hubei Fuhua Automobile Company, Cheng Li Automobile Company's product damage compensation case, the plaintiff's contract for the purchase and sale of the tank car by the chemical industry management department was a serial contract, and the contract was first signed with the seller.Then the seller and the producer sign the contract.As a result of defects in the tank car delivered by the defendant Fuhua Company, the plaintiff incurred a series of losses in the course of operation, the most important of which was the loss of the tank car itself and the loss of the goods.The plaintiff sued the seller and producer for these losses, and the court of first instance held that the responsibility of the seller and producer belonged to competition, and explained that the plaintiff filed a suit of tort against the producer, only suing the producer, and the plaintiff withdrew the suit against the seller.The dispute between the parties is as follows: the plaintiff holds that the producer should bear both parts of the loss and that the loss is caused by the failure of the tank car delivered by the producer to comply with the regulations;The defendant argued that he was not liable for product damage under the Product quality Act.In order to define the nature of product self-damage and the connotation of pure economic interest loss, both of them have overlap in definition, expression form and characteristics, according to which the nature of product self-damage is regarded as contractual responsibility.Relief should be provided by contract law.However, at present, the system of distinction between the loss and personal loss other than the defective product and the self-damage in our country is not fully compensated for the damage caused by the concurrence of the claim rights in our country, so whether the two kinds of losses belong to the competing right of claim can not be fully compensated.Combined with the relevant provisions of the competing right of claim, it is concluded that the product self-loss and his loss are not competing claims, and the self-damage and his damage should be fully compensated.However, in view of the current laws and regulations of our country, there is a lack of effective solutions to the compensation for self-damage of products. By weighing the advantages and disadvantages of several major solutions advocated by academic circles,The conclusion that the product self-damage should be included in the framework of tort law relief is a reasonable and efficient solution for both the court and the victim. Our country should take this as the main content of the judicial interpretation.Perfect the trial basis of product self-damage cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 朱廣新;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范模式——我國侵權(quán)行為法對(duì)純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范樣式[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年05期

2 張新寶;張小義;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的幾個(gè)基本問題[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年04期

3 梁慧星;中國產(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

4 張湘蘭,朱強(qiáng);論純經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的侵權(quán)責(zé)任——從歐洲比較法展開[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2004年05期

5 沈智琴;彭彬彬;;淺析純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失規(guī)范模式[J];思想戰(zhàn)線;2011年S1期

6 葛云松;;純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償與一般侵權(quán)行為條款[J];中外法學(xué);2009年05期

7 夏元林;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任之準(zhǔn)確定位——兼對(duì)現(xiàn)有責(zé)任競合理論之質(zhì)疑[J];政法論叢;1999年01期

8 王慶豐;;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任與合同責(zé)任競合探析[J];政法論壇;2009年01期

9 張新寶;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法學(xué):從立法論向解釋論的轉(zhuǎn)變[J];中國人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 張寅;產(chǎn)品自身損害侵權(quán)責(zé)任的比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

2 姜淑明;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中的損害賠償研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2005年

3 唐志偉;產(chǎn)品自傷中的純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1726138