International Business Law-Law of Product Liability

Introduction of Product Liability LawDefinitionHistory of Product Liability LawDefinitionA manufacturer‟s or seller‟s tort liability for damages or injuries suffered by a buyer, user, orbystander as a result of a defective product.产品责任是指生产者或销售者因其生产或销售的缺陷产品致使购买者，使用者以及旁观者遭受财产损害或人身伤害而需承担的侵权法律责任。

History of Product Liability LawOrigin: Precedents in the common law1842 Case of Winterbottom v. Wright by the Exchequer of Pleas1916 Doctrine of Negligence became the dominated principle in the product liability actions1965 Restatement (Second) of Torts published by the American Law Institute (ALI) established the doctrine of strict liability formally as the basis of product liability1985 European Economic Community (EEC) issued the Directive on Product LiabilityProduct Liability Law of the USATerms of Product LiabilityProducts 产品Defect 缺陷Persons Liable 责任主体Claimants 权力请求者Doctrines of Product LiabilityDoctrine of Negligence 疏忽责任理论Doctrine of Warranty 担保责任理论Doctrine of Strict Liability 严格责任理论Defenses 产品责任的抗辩Damage 损害赔偿ProductMUPLA:统一产品责任示范法Any object possessing intrinsic value, capable of delivery either as an assembled whole or as a component part or parts, and produced for introduction into trade or commerce. Human tissue and organs, including human blood and its components, are excluded from this term.The Third Restatement:侵权法重述(第三版)A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption.产品是经过商业性销售以供使用或消费的有形动产Services, even when provided commercially, are not products.服务，即使是商业性提供的，也不是产品Human blood and human tissue, even when provided commercially, are not subject to the rules of this Restatement.人体血液及人体组织器官，即使是商业性提供的，也不受本重述规则的约束ProductThe categories of products in product liability law also include:(1) natural products, such as primary agricultural products and animals天然产品，如原材料，原始农产品以及动物(2) intangible personal property, such as electricity (transmission of electricity) andinformation in media无形动产，如电和信息类产品(3) real property, e.g. a leased house不动产，如出售和出租的房屋DefectDefinition 定义Consumer Expectations Test 消费者期望标准Risk-utility Test 风险-效用比较标准Categories:Manufacturing Defect 产品的制造缺陷Design Defect 产品的设计缺陷Warning Defect 产品的警告缺陷DefinitionSecond Restatement uses “unreasonable danger” to define the defect.重述二把产品定义为“不合理的危险”In theory, every product contains danger, but only the product with unreasonable danger could be called as a defective product in the product liability law.How to Judge Whether the Danger Contained in the Product is Reasonable Consumer Expectations Test 消费者期望标准Beneficial to protect the consumer‟s interests and was helpful to enhance the safety level of the productsMight inflict heavy risk and liability upon the producers unreasonablyMight result in that the consumer‟s interests as a whole were damagedRisk-utility Test 风险-效用比较标准States that consumer expectation does not constitute an independent standard for judging the defectiveness of productIt is necessary to use the risk-utility balancing, “the emphasis is on creating incentives for manufacturers to achieve optimal levels of safety in designing and marketingproducts”“Society does not benefit from products that are excessively safe. Society benefits most when the right, or optimal, amount of product safety is achieved”Categories of DefectsManufacturing defect of productA physical departure from a product‟s intended design causing the product contains theunreasonable danger产品存在与该产品的设计意图相背离的物理状况，从而使该产品含有不合理的危险In such cases the injury was caused as a result of defect in the manufacturing of the product.These cases are the hardest to prove.产品的制造缺陷往往是生产者在产品的生产或管理过程中的疏忽所致Categories of DefectsDesign defect of productThe specific product unit conforms to the intended design but the intended design itself renders the product not reasonably safe产品虽然符合产品的设计意图，但该设计本身含有不合理的危险In these cases the injury was caused by a poor design despite the fact that there may be no defect in the individual product itself产品的设计缺陷不仅影响个别产品的安全性，而且会导致该设计下地整批产品存在缺陷Babcock v. General Motors CorporationThe [United States Court of Appeals] case arose from an accident on February 21, 1998, when a General Motors pickup truck driven by Paul A. Babcock, III, went off the road and struck a tree.The accident rendered Babcock a paraplegic. On June 15, 1999, Babcock died as a result of complications from his injuries.Plaintiff brought suit alleging negligence and strict liability against the defendant.Babcock v. General Motors CorporationThe jury returned a verdict finding GM liable on the negligence count and not liable on the strict liability count. It is undisputed that when Babcock was first seen after the accident his seat belt was not fastened around him.The complaint alleged that Babcock was wearing his seat belt prior to the accident, but that the belt unbuckled as soon as pressure was exerted on it and the buckle released due to a conditionknown as "false latching." The main focus of the trial was on this claim of false latching.Babcock v. General Motors CorporationThe original case was proven by the plaintiff and awarded unspecified amount. This case was won largely in part of expert testimony.The expert “determined crash speed by methodology generally accepted in accident reconstruction field and approved by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (Nordberg, 2003) .”His opinion was that the “seatbelt would have restrained passenger at that speed if nondefective and in use, and concluded from inspection of seatbelt that it had indeed been inuse just prior to impact (Nordberg, 2003) .”He also showed an alternative design from Volvo that helps prevent false latching.This case was affirmed and the court further awarded the plaintiff legal and court fees incurred during the appeals process.Categories of DefectsWarning defect of productThe product is lack of necessary and adequate instructions or warnings which would have reduced or eliminated the risk of products产品存在可以合理预见的危险，但产品的生产者或销售者没有提供必要和充分的产品使用说明或警告以降低或避免产品存在的危险These cases refer to injuries caused as a result of a product known to be potentially dangerous which was sold without warning labels or having inadequate labeling to properly warnthe consumer. Including inadequate or no instructions for proper setup, use ormaintenanceLaramendy v. MyersA theatrical smoke-producing device set fire to a child's dress."The written directions which were with the device when it was received, warned: to hold the device away from the face while filling the hole with powder; and to stand back without makingcontact (when the device is on the floor) so that 'puff' will not strike face."Notwithstanding these warnings the court found the warning was incomplete, affirmed a verdict for plaintiff, and held that the "defendants neglected to reasonably warn of the dangerouspropensities of the device. … There was no warning of danger from fire."Persons LiableMUPLAManufacturer: undertake the strict liabilityProduct seller other than manufacturer: undertake the fault-based liabilityThird Restatement:Manufacturing Seller: undertake the strict liability生产性销售商，主要是产品的生产者，承担严格责任Non-manufacturing seller: undertake the strict liability, because the seller as business entity is in a better position than is individual user and consumer to insure against the loss causedby the defective product非生产性销售商，主要是指从事产品销售或分销的销售者，包括产品的批发，分销和零售业者，此外还包括从事产品出租的经营者，在销售-服务混合经营中提供产品的经营者已经提供产品寄托的经营者In most instances, the seller will be able to pass liability costs up the chain of product distribution to the manufacturerClaimantsAny person or entity that suffers harm caused by the defective product, including the reasonably foreseeable bystanders.在产品责任法中，凡是其人身或财产因产品缺陷遭受损害的受害者都有权向产品的生产者或销售者提出产品责任的权利请求，无论前者与后者是否有合同关系，因此亦包可以合理预见的旁观者。