Study On Pure Economic Loss In Product's Self-inflicted Damage

Pure economic loss may happen in any field so it has caused widespread concern and discussion, and in some countries even has been discussed for a century. However, pure economic loss is not an outdated concept, the discussion of it today is particularly intense. Some scholars in China began to pay attention to the handling of the issue. Because there is not a unified concept about the pure economic loss, in judicial practice courts always deal with this problem as different types. Therefore, this article begins with the type of pure economic loss in Product's Self-inflicted Damage, and then does an in-depth discussion. In this paper, the main part is divided into five sections.The first part of the article introduces the key concepts involved, as well as the core issues discussed in this paper. First of all, we will introduce the views of pure economic loss in legislation and in theory from different countries, and then summed up the core elements of the pure economic loss. After that this part made a brief description of all types. Subsequently, pure economic loss in Product's Self-inflicted Damage serves as the entry point to discuss that in reality the traditional rule of no compensation about pure economic loss lead to some paradoxes, which is the main issues that will be discussed in this article, namely whether pure economic loss in Product's Self-inflicted Damage should be or not compensated or not in tort law.In the second part, we mainly study on Products self-inflicted cases from the comparative law. This part will inspect the modes of dealing with self-injury cases of four countries from the two legal families. In France there is a more open type of tort law, which does not prohibit relief for pure economic loss, and thus all types of pure economic loss in tort liability will be compensated if they meet almost the other entire elements. In Germany, as a result of the legislative model that the protected object in tort law was listed in the section 823 of the code, pure economic loss in the "German Civil Code" under section 823 can not be compensated. But after the "float switch" case, the German courts developed a set of theory and thus some self-inflicted cases will be identified as property damage so that pure economic loss in products self-inflicted can be compensated. In Anglo-American law system, due to restrictions on the privity principle of contract, the case of pure economic loss only belongs to the tort law. But because of the restriction of the rule of no compensation for pure economic loss, pure economic loss is difficult to receive compensation. Recent years the rules are beginning to loosen. In product self-injury and housing defects cases if the accident is sudden and catastrophic, the damage will be served as physical damage and it will be compensated.In The third part, we will mainly discuss the main factors about the exclusion rules in the view of history, and then we will rethink it carefully. First of all, the opening of the floodgate will not lead to the boom of the litigation floodgates. It will not bring enormous pressure to the courts and will not lead to the spread of litigation, which will result in the collapse of the court. Secondly, in the value system of the philosophy, there is a sequence of human values, the protection of intangible wealth didn't and shouldn't has the same treatment with the tangle property and the integrity of body. Human being is more important than the object, and the object is more important than money. But through the studying we found that if we refused to compensate for economic loss based on this principle in relief, it violates precisely the rule above-mentioned. Finally, the concern about the contract law being submerged in the ocean of tort law will not become a reality. Even if we admit the compensation for pure economic loss under tort law, the function of contract law and the system can also be upheld.In the fourth part, we will directly discuss the reasonableness of providing compensating for pure economic loss under tort law. First of all, the exclusion rule of pure economic loss is based on the distinction between the pure economic loss and the tangible damages and psychiatric injury. The nature of loss is very important to decide whether the loss will be compensated or not. In fact, whether purely economic loss is an independent type of damages is not a clear conclusion. This uncertainty of distinction has led to a lot of injustice and unfair outcomes. In order to restore justice and refuse to use the exclusion rule, some theory has been noted, such as complex structure theory, the theory of the same material, which add more uncertainty to the Court's decision. Secondly, the primary purpose of tort law is to fill the damage. Therefore under the guidance of the principle that "harm should be filled unless there are defenses", others leading to the damage should compensate it, unless proving the existence of the reasons of defenses. Finally, if only under the protection of contract law, pure economic loss is not well-recognized. Tort law can play a very good supplementary role in the compensation of the pure economic loss.In the fifth part, the China's current state of legislation for pure economic loss in products self-inflicted was mainly discussed. And put forward some proposals further on the drawing up of Tort Law. At present, China has not the concept of pure economic loss, so the legislation has not made specific provisions. But based on the analysis of relevant articles, we found that pure economic loss in products self-inflicted can be compensated under the law. However, different understanding of the law may lead to different judgments, which will be damage the dignity and authority of the law, so we must do some reform. By summing up three aspects of reform should be carried out in the law of product liability. First of all, the product itself should not make a distinction with other property, so the product self–inflicted will be compensated under the tort law. Secondly, the main subject of liabilities should be clearly defined, based on consideration of the current mode of production, raw materials and spare parts suppliers are potential subject of liabilities, which has been confirmed from other countries'legislation. Thirdly, we should admit that the competition between liability of breach of contract and liability for tort provide the best possible protection for the consumers, improving producers'attention and reducing product defects and potential risk of damages. Finally, we should establish the rule of eliminating the risk, removing the hindrance and the recall system of the product. Emphasizing the prevention of damage may promote producers,sellers and consumers to eliminate the risk as soon as possible, which meet with interests of the parties.