《产品责任法》英语
U.S. Products Liability System in English
德赛翻译独立主办产品责任法英语以下译文版权为德赛翻译独立拥有
2003年
德赛翻译推出《产品责任法》英语(U.S. Products Liability System in English)专栏,谈论美国产品责任制度的话题,涉及有关的法理及案例;行文采取中英文对照形式,材料取自地地道道、原汁原味的美国英语;让读者朋友在学英语的同时也学到该领域的知识。主办者相信本专栏一定会成为希望提升英语水平、希望更深入了解产品责任制度及一般求知兴趣广泛的各界人士的一个益友。敬请关注。
第十讲:认定产品瑕疵的概念准则:消费者期待(续)
诚然,并非所有的警告及生产缺陷案都适切于一般期待比照的适用范围。故而,审理对医生警示的警告案,如案情牵涉到“一般人全然无知的专门领域”,可能需要有专家的证言。生产缺陷案也有可能是这样。诸如确定造卡车轮的金属能经受的冲击力究竟应为多大之类——如在希顿诉福特汽车公司案——可能就需要由专家作证,且不
展开阅读
第十讲:认定产品瑕疵的概念准则:消费者期待(续)
诚然,并非所有的警告及生产缺陷案都适切于一般期待比照的适用范围。故而,审理对医生警示的警告案,如案情牵涉到“一般人全然无知的专门领域”,可能需要有专家的证言。生产缺陷案也有可能是这样。诸如确定造卡车轮的金属能经受的冲击力究竟应为多大之类——如在希顿诉福特汽车公司案——可能就需要由专家作证,且不管诉称的缺陷是属生产瑕疵、还是设计瑕疵。而设计讼案,一般说瑕疵的确定通常需要有专家的证言。
Not all warning- and production-defect cases fall within the realm of ordinary expectations, however. Thus in the case of warnings to doctors, expert testimony may be required where matters are involved “with respect to which a layman can have no knowledge at all.” The same can be true of production defects. Expert evidence may be required to establish how much impact the metal of a truck wheel can withstand, as in Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., regardless of whether the alleged defect is one of production or design. In design cases generally, it is usual for expert evidence to be required to establish defectiveness.
有评论认为,若危险属显而易见,则一般消费者期待检测并不适用,因为在此情形下消费者不可能期待产品是安全的。由是,在希格斯诉通用汽车公司案,法院拒绝应准原告因被告汽车制造商未在车上装置气囊而提出的索赔要求,原因是“原告作为 ‘一般消费者’ 并无车在撞击时会有气囊充气而出的期待。”鉴于认定一件产品是否有瑕疵,当今的趋向是将显而易见危险性仅作为事实认定中的考虑因素之一,这一裁定结果是可争议的。况且,即使一件产品显然并不安全,但还是有消费者真的会期待它是安全的。
Some have criticized the ordinary consumer expectations test as not being useful when the danger is obvious, since in that situation the consumer cannot expect the product to be safe. So in Higgs v. General Motor Corp. the court held the plaintiffs did not state a cause of action against the defendant car manufacturer for failure to equip its cars with air begs, since “the plaintiffs as ‘ordinary consumer’ did not expect air begs to pop out of the dash.” This result is questionable, in view of the modern trend to treat obviousness of danger as only one factor to be considered by the fact finder in determining whether a product is defective. Moreover, a consumer can certainly expectthat a product should be safe even though it evidently is not.
对消费者期待检测持有的另一批评,是认为它对审理复杂产品案起不了作用,原因是消费者欠缺评判依据无从断定产品该安全到何种程度。故此,期待该是怎么样的,往往是由专家的证言来作决断,不论案子是以严格责任还是以过失责任告到法院。由是,审理卡恩诉爱默逊电器公司案,专家获准作出证言,指称被告的产品“不合理高危乃至超出了普通使用人的预想。”何为一般消费者期待、又何为一个理性的人的关心,专家作证提出的证言为定出标准提供了相关信息;然而并非因为有了专家证言,就能够使一般消费者期待或理性的人的期待便失去其说服力,或者可以由果而溯因。
Another criticism sometimes leveled against the consumer expectations test is that it is unhelpful in the case of a complicated product, since the consumer lacks any basis for determining how safe the product should be. The basis of expectation is however typically furnished by expert testimony, whether the suit is brought in strict liability or in negligence. Thus in Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co. an expert was permitted to testify that defendant’s product was “unreasonable dangerous beyond theexpectation of the average user.” Ordinary consumer expectations, as well as the standard of care of a reasonable person, can be informed by expert witness evidence, but that evidence does not make the expectations of either the ordinary consumer or the reasonable person any less relevant or outcome-determinative.
收起
第九讲:认定产品瑕疵的概念准则:消费者期待
界定产品不满意度,一种很常用、或许是流行的概念即是不合理高危。由《侵权法重述(第二版)》第402条A给出的定义为:“该售出物品必定是,其危险程度超出了购买此物的一般消费者、即比照社会人群的一般认知程度对此物品性能有一般知晓的消费者心目中的尺度”这一比照标准所蕴含的一般消费者期待与《统一商法典》“售
展开阅读
第九讲:认定产品瑕疵的概念准则:消费者期待
界定产品不满意度,一种很常用、或许是流行的概念即是不合理高危。由《侵权法重述(第二版)》第402条A给出的定义为:“该售出物品必定是,其危险程度超出了购买此物的一般消费者、即比照社会人群的一般认知程度对此物品性能有一般知晓的消费者心目中的尺度”这一比照标准所蕴含的一般消费者期待与《统一商法典》“售卖”一条所定义的相似,唯法典未要求把货物具危险性作为不适于作为商品售卖的条件。对适于作为商品售卖所包含的默示担保,法典给出的核心条款其表述是:欲使货物适于作为商品售卖,此货物至少“应适合该物派用时分派给它的惯常用场”。
A common and perhaps the prevailing definition of product unsatisfactoriness is that of “unreasonable danger”, given in comment of the Rest. 2d Torts 402A: "The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." This standard of implied ordinary consumer expectations is similar to that of merchantability, as defined in the sales article of the UCC, with the difference that the Code does not require the goods to be "dangerous" as a condition to unmerchantability. The central provision of the implied warranty of merchantability is the statement that goods, to be merchantable, must be at least such as "are fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used."
审理虚假陈述案,则毋须比照这一蕴意一般消费者期待标准。陈述本身即建立了消费者期待——可以是一般期待、也可以是特定期待,视陈述的内涵而定。
The standard of implied ordinary consumer expectations is unnecessary in the case of misrepresentation. The representation itself establishes the consumer's expectations--which may be ordinary or special, depending on the content of the representation.
一般消费者期待比照标准对于处理许多生产瑕疵案是很适用的,因为随机缺陷往往能够通过比照一般期待所反映的尺度而得以衡定。比如,普通消费者不难作出判断,指认食物中含有玻璃粉不能与一般期待相吻合。一般消费者检测也很适用于许多警告案的案情,这是因为跟患者接受医疗时在知情的情况下表示同意的整个场境相似,消费者通常都知道自己想要警告者作何警告。
The standard of ordinary consumer expectations works well for many production defects, since the random departure can often be measured against the norm as representative of ordinary expectations. The average consumer can easily determine, for example, that ground glass in food does not meet ordinary expectations. The ordinary consumer test may also work well for many warning situations, since the consumer--just as the medical patient in the context of informed consent--often knows what he would like to be warned about.
收起
第四讲:何为产品瑕疵?(瑕疵类型——续)
仔细审视之下,生产瑕疵与设计瑕疵的区别同样不是那么分明。对此不能按有意还是无意来划界限(谓此一为有意的设计瑕疵而彼一为粗心所致的生产缺陷),因为许多设计缺点都非有意作成,而许多生产和检测标准倒是有意定得偏低以降低成本乃导致出事时有发生。虽说生产缺陷往往属随机性而设计缺陷具有共通性,这一区别也并
展开阅读
第四讲:何为产品瑕疵?(瑕疵类型——续)
仔细审视之下,生产瑕疵与设计瑕疵的区别同样不是那么分明。对此不能按有意还是无意来划界限(谓此一为有意的设计瑕疵而彼一为粗心所致的生产缺陷),因为许多设计缺点都非有意作成,而许多生产和检测标准倒是有意定得偏低以降低成本乃导致出事时有发生。虽说生产缺陷往往属随机性而设计缺陷具有共通性,这一区别也并非总是被当作标准。试看美国烟草公司诉格尼耐尔一案,法院认定杀虫剂残留物——非有意所致、但在被告经烟熏的烟草中“一般情况下”都能见到——是制造瑕疵而非设计瑕疵。
The distinction between production and design defects is likewise not clear on close scrutiny. It cannot be based on intention (intentional design, versus inadvertent production defect), because many deficiencies are unintentional while many production and testing standards that result in occasional errors are consciously selected to keep down costs. While production flaws tend to be random, and design characteristics generic, this distinction also does not consistently hold true. But see American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, where the court said that pesticide residue, unintentionally but “normally” found in defendant’s tobacco after fumigation, was a manufacturing rather than a design defect.
其原因或许在于,产品有某种毛病,消费者尚可理解;但生产瑕疵的问题,出在其缺陷达到明显低劣于一般消费者预想的程度。所有的人都以为,一瓶正规生产的饮料不可能内中有老鼠。然而并不能得出结论,说有老鼠就必定是过失所致。看下例(弗拉塞诉蒙哥马利沃德公司案),初生仔鸡有可能随机感染家禽造白细胞组织增生,使之成为不合格品如同饮料中有老鼠;虽说不容争议的事实是:初生仔鸡身上的家禽造白细胞组织增生既无从检测发现也无从作医学处理;然而该案的产品提供者被判定要为疾病造成的损害承担严格责任。
It may because production defects so clearly fall below ordinary consumer expectation that fault is assumed; we all know that a properly prepared bottle of coke should not contain a mouse. But it does follow that the presence of the mouse is necessarily the result of fault. Thus, baby chicks may be randomly infected with avian leucosis, as in Vlases v. Montgomery Ward & Co., making them as unacceptable as a coke containing a mouse, although it was undisputed that avian leucosis is undetectable and untreatable in newborn chicks, yet the supplier in Vlases was held strictly liable for the damages resulting from the disease.
收起
第三讲:何为产品瑕疵?(瑕疵类型)
一般认为产品瑕疵有三种类型:一,制造或生产缺陷;二,设计瑕疵;三,警告或说明有误。除以上三类,有些法学评论家又加上第四类:虚假陈述。另有法学家认为虚假陈述不应构成一种瑕疵,原因是产品本身并无毛病。这成其为一个可争议之点,因为一件产品其警告作得不完备,但产品自身往往并无毛病。而一件产品其标识有误
展开阅读
第三讲:何为产品瑕疵?(瑕疵类型)
一般认为产品瑕疵有三种类型:一,制造或生产缺陷;二,设计瑕疵;三,警告或说明有误。除以上三类,有些法学评论家又加上第四类:虚假陈述。另有法学家认为虚假陈述不应构成一种瑕疵,原因是产品本身并无毛病。这成其为一个可争议之点,因为一件产品其警告作得不完备,但产品自身往往并无毛病。而一件产品其标识有误(也即虚假陈述),则有可能如同产品警告不完备一样会致害于人。
It is often said that there are three types of product defects: 1) manufacturing or production flaws, 2) design defects, and 3) defective warnings or instructions. To these three some commentators add a fourth category, 4) misrepresentation. Others say that misrepresentation is not a defect, since there is nothing wrong with the product itself. This is debatable, since there may likewise be nothing physically wrong with a product lacking adequate warnings. A mislabeled (i.e., misrepresented) product may be just as dangerous as one containing an inadequate warning.
有些法学著作家视警告有误为设计瑕疵的一种类型。其这样做至少有两方面的法理根据。其一,警告不完备,如同设计缺陷,通常为整个一条生产线出的产品所共有,而生产或制造缺陷则往往是随机的、非典型的。其二,许多、或许是大多数法院认为,就设计及警告缺陷两类案件而言,追究严格责任跟追究疏忽责任并无甚区别(或者说就是一回事);而在认定生产缺陷时,一般情况下无过失责任可言。况且,不乏这样的例子,即设计缺陷与警告不完备合为一体,如派科诉佛兰科G霍克公司案——一辆柏油铺路机因未配置后方反射镜及倒车警告标志而被指称有缺陷。这样的视镜及标志就属于须对产品实体予以重新设计才可消除的警告缺陷,而不仅仅是将书写的警告标签贴到产品之上。
Some writers treat warning defects as a type of design defect. The rationale for doing this is at least twofold. One is that a warning inadequacy, like a design inadequacy, is usually characteristic of a whole line of products, while a production or manufacturing flaw is usually random and atypical of the product. Another is that many – perhaps a majority – of the courts say that strict liability is no different from (or is the same as) negligence in the case of both design and warning defects, while fault is generally irrelevant in determining production flaws. Moreover, there are instances in which design and warning flaws meld, as for example in Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co., where a paydozer was alleged to be defective because of the lack of rear view mirrors and backup warning signals. Such mirrors and signals are warnings that would require physical redesign of the product, and not just the attachment of written warning labels on the product.
收起
版权所有2000-2015 德赛翻译DST
电话 / 027-82824935 邮件 / dstdst@126.com 业务部地址 / 武汉金源世界中心A2701
改版时间 / 2015年12月 平面支持 / 严章联设计顾问