论文部分内容阅读
《侵权责任法》46条确立了制售者的售后警示义务。该义务之规定实现了对消费者的全面保护,但由于条文太过笼统难免会给法律适用带来困惑。司法实务中应明确售后警示义务的产生不以销售时产品存在缺陷为要件;除售后“发现”产品缺陷的情形以外,在售后“应当发现”产品缺陷的情形下制售者也应负担售后警示义务。售后警示义务的存在和违反应当遵循“理性人”标准加以判断,违反售后警示义务产生的侵权责任理应适用过错责任的归责原则,而发展风险不应是其免责事由。
The Tort Liability Act 46 establishes the seller’s after-sale warning obligation. The provisions of the obligation to achieve full protection of consumers, but because the provisions are too general will inevitably bring confusion to the law. Judicial practice should be clear after-sale warning obligations arising from the product does not exist as a flaw in the sale of essential elements; In addition to after-sales “found ” product defects in the case of after-sales “should be found ” product defects in the case Should bear the warning obligation of sale. The existence and violation of post-sale warning obligation should be judged according to the standard of “rational man”. The principle of liability for infringement arising from the obligation of post-sale warning should be applied to the principle of liability for liability for wrongfulness and the development risk should not be the exemption.