The Research On Solution Of The Defective Product Injures Itself

For the solution of the defective product injures itself,because of the contradiction between the Tort Liability Law and the Product Quality Law,academic theory and judicial decisions have been controversial on this issue.Even before the implementation of the Tort Liability Law,although Article 41 of the Product Quality Law explicitly excludes the defective product injures itself,it is affected by Article122 of the General Principles of Civil Law and the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Law.Most courts usually admit that the defective product injures itself and other damages can be protected by tort law without clarifying the reasons.The compensation for the defective product injures itself is affected by the comparative law.Scholars claim that there can be relief through two modes.One thinks that “others damage” in Article 41 of the Tort Liability Law should be expanded,including the defective product injures itself;another believes that the defective product injures itself is the scope of performance interests,and should seek compensation for the guarantee liability.However,due to the contract relativity and other factors,when the seller is unable to compensate,can use for the “transferable guarantee liability”,and the victim directly requests the producer for damages forbreach of contract.I believe that Article 41 of the Tort Liability Law is based on the interests and the protection of consumer rights,and intentionally changes the old law point of view,acknowledging the claim for tort law relief for the defective product injures itself.With the restriction of “product defects”,not only can better protect consumers,but also will not expand the scope of protection of tort law.The first chapter is an overview of the defective product injures itself.In this chapter,we first analyze the legislative provisions.Because of the discrepancies between the various laws,the courts have different judgments and the academic views are still inconclusive,thus proposing the main problems of this paper.Secondly,it illustrates the particularity of the case.Taking the car self-ignition case as the research object,not only the research is more targeted,but also the research is very instructive.Finally,the main part of this chapter is the definition of related concepts.For “product defects”,I believe that “single standard” should be adopted,that is,whether there is any unreasonable danger that endangers the personal and property safety of others.The second chapter examines the comparative study.From the perspective of legislation,the product liability does not include the defective product injures itself,which is the basic principle of each country.However,in the judicial,due to factors such as the limitation of action and the relation of the contract,if the infringement relief is strictly refused,the interests of the victim will not be effectively protected.Accordingly,there are other ways in which the court seeks remedies for.In the United States,it is said that the defective product injures itself is purely economic loss,and refuses tortious relief,this is “the pure economic loss rule”;the consent of the infringement relief is the minority court opinion;and by distinguishing the“ frustration of purpose” and “falling into danger” to decide whether the defective product injures itself can bring a lawsuit for infringement.It is the opinion of the centrist court.In Germany,the Federal Court passed the “continued erosion damage theory” to identify the damage to the remainder of the product caused by partial defects and to obtain general tort liability compensation in accordance with Article823 of the German Civil Code.The third chapter is about China's legislation,academics and judicial views.For the relief of the defective product injures itself,the legislation has experienced the vague definition of the General Principles of Civil Law,the explicit exclusion of the Product Quality Law,and the intentional change of the Tort Liability Law.In academia,the “absence” of infringement relief,the “negative statement” of refusal of infringement relief,and the “compromise” of infringement relief that can be claimed with inherent damages.The affirmation of “product defect” is recognized by scholars and judicial practitioners.At the judicial level,since the implementation of the Tort Liability Law,it is the practice of most courts to obtain infringement compensation for the defective product injures itself and other damages.Some judges believe that the Tort Liability Law has changed the provisions of the Product Quality Law.This not only conforms to the legislative purpose of the tort law,but also helps to protect consumer rights in a timely and effective manner.The fourth chapter explores the path of tort law relief.This chapter mainly discusses how the defective product injures itself is compensated according to Article41 of the Tort Liability Law,and the rationality of the tort law relief.For car ignition cases,consumers have little control over product information,and evidence is often eliminated or insufficient.Therefore,the standard of proof of defects,damage range,causality can be used to draw on the theory of proof theory in German law.When the cause cannot be ascertained,after eliminating external and human factors,presume car defects and causality.The compensation scope shall be limited due to other pure economic losses caused by defects.Otherwise,the scope will be expanded indefinitely.The predictability rules of the US law should be used to determine whether to compensate according to a reasonable man standard.In summary,this paper takes the relief path of the defective product injures itself as the guide,and takes the car self-ignition case as the research object.Through the definition of the related concept of the self-loss of the defect product,the relevant rules of the comparative law are analyzed,and the legislation of our country is sorted out,also include academic and judicial opinions.I believe that under the premise of“product defects”,the defective product injures itself can be compensated for the basis of the claim under Article 41 of the Tort Liability Law.From the perspective of legal policy,the defective product injures itself is not the inherent damage of the German courts.It is only a special provision,so it will not cause the boundary between the tort liability and the liability for breach of contract to be vague.Through the research of this thesis,I hope to provide reasonable suggestions for the study of the relief path of the defective product injures itself in China,so as to better guide the judicial judgment.