Study On Punitive Damages In Product Liability In China

Finally, the Article 47 of the tort liability act was introduced in the long-awaited,which sets clear rules for the application of the punitive damages system standards in our country. It is very necessary to our country on the which market economy is developing rapidly. Since the reform and opening,China's economic development is very rapid and people's life quality is in advance, so the demand for the product is growing always. With the development of commodity economy vigorously, the product quality problems are also highlighted. Poor quality and fake goods is harm to health of consumers, even causing death. A lot of product liability laws in our country are introduced In order to adapt to the development of society and curb product quality issues. There are punitive damages in some of the terms such as the Food Safety Act providing the maximum ten times the liability penalty. But it's still not enough, because the damage caused by some products infringement is not only ten times the compensation which can be compensated, for example, you have the idea that the presence of defects of hot pot explosion will cause burns, or that food is expired, but you still let them for sale. In 2008, the famous "toxic milk powder" case, the product liability law in compensation for the problem was pushed in the teeth of the storm.Under such background, we have to study the rationality of the punitive damages system in foreign product liability. Whether there is a need to transplant this system to our country's law? How to transplant in order to adapt to the situation of our country?Whether China should adhere to the distinction between civil law and common law to abandon this system? This problem was placed in front of the lawmakers. Many well-known scholars in China have made important point. Fortunately, in 2010 promulgated the "tort liability law" in Article 47, explicitly was set up the punitive compensation system. However, because the system was set too cautiously, it is stilldifficult to apply in the judicial practice. The problem is mainly concentrated in the subjective status. Article 47 clearly was defined as "knowing" the subjective condition.The subjective idea of consumers brought great difficulties. Imagine who would admit that he is deliberately selling the defective product? So this article mainly is standing in the perspective of the system of punitive damages in China there are those problems to put forward the inadequacies through the comparison study and put forward the suggestions. I hope it can be useful to the development of this system in our country.