論消費者保護法商品責任及服務責任之可合理期待安全性

Abstract

本論文使用司法院法學資料檢索系統，在閱讀、整理並分析最高法院及高等法院共超過650筆判決後，發現近15年來，原告以消費者保護法第7條作為請求權基礎之一的裁判數量，大致上呈現逐年增加的趨勢；在這樣的趨勢之下，對於商品責任或服務責任之相關構成要件的研究，應有其實益及必要性。 至於本論文之研究主題「消費者保護法之可合理期待安全性」，實務見解對於此一要件在商品責任及服務責任上的操作，分別有其異同之處。 在兩者之共同議題方面，首先，針對可合理期待之安全的判斷標準，法院判決文字 大多均以「一般消費者」或「一般社會大眾觀點」作為出發點，來認定系爭商品或服務是否具備消費者保護法第7條修正前的「安全或衛生上之危險」，或是修法後的「可合理期待之安全性」。第二，實務見解不論是在論述商品責任或服務責任時，常會以「消費者通常合理使用或接受系爭商品或服務」作為消費者對企業經營者主張商品責任或是服務責任之前提要件，並要求消費者須舉證證明自己係合理使用商品或接受服務。然而，此項實務見解實與消費者保護法之相關規定有所扞格，顯然不當地加重了消費者之舉證責任，容有檢討空間；況且，若損害之發生確實是肇因於消費者不當使用商品或接受服務，在民事損害賠償責任的制度設計中，仍有因果關係或與有過失之要件或機制可作為把關，實務見解實在毋須過度甚至不當地強調此一要件的地位或重要性。第三，本論文認為，即使系爭商品通過認證、檢驗，或符合相關法令規定，僅得作為系爭商品具備可合理期待安全性之參考因素或是最低標準而已；惟若企業經營者若能證明系爭服務確實通過檢驗或符合相關法令規定，應可推斷系爭服務具備可合理期待之安全性。 在兩者之個別議題方面，針對商品責任，首先，法院判決常因商品經消費者使用一段時日後始出現缺陷，而排除商品於流通進入市場時即欠缺可合理期待安全性的可能性，或認消費者未能舉證系爭商品於流通進入市場時即欠缺可合理期待安全性，從而駁回消費者關於商品責任之請求。然而，此項實務見解，不但不符合消費者之期待，亦與消費者保護法之相關規定有違，而不當地加重了消費者之舉證責任。第二，本論文認為，當系爭商品在事故中毀損滅失，而無法作為事後鑑定之客體時，「同款商品」之鑑定結果與「系爭商品」是否具備可合理期待安全性間，僅有負面推論之可能，而無必然之正相關。詳言之，若企業經營者所提出之同款商品的鑑定結果被認為有缺陷，則應可認定系爭商品亦不具可合理期待之安全性；更重要的是，縱使企業經營者所提出之同款商品的鑑定結果被認為是符合標準，亦不必然可認定系爭商品即具備可合理期待之安全性。 針對服務責任，首先，法院判決在論述服務責任之可合理期待安全性時，容易與行為人之過失混為一談，法院必須清楚分辨消費者保護法第7條之服務責任與傳統民法上之契約責任或侵權行為責任在歸責事由上的差異，才能避免此一問題。第二，當系爭服務符合同業標準時，固然可認定系爭服務本身確實具備該同業標準所描述之品質，惟同業標準僅適合作為服務具備可合理期待安全性之「最低標準」，縱使系爭服務與同業標準一致，尚不能當然認為系爭服務即具備可合理期待之安全性。

After analyzing over 650 judgments held by the Supreme Court and the Taiwan High Court (including its branch courts), this thesis discovers that the amount of judgments based on Article 7 under Consumer Protection Law increase year by year within recent 15 years. The tendency points out the necessity and urgency to do further research on the requirements of product or service liability. When it comes to “the reasonably expected safety under Consumer Protection Law”, which is the primary issue in this thesis, similarities and differences exist between product liability and service liability in judicial practice. On the similarities, the courts adopt similar criteria when judging 'the reasonably expected safety', and review the requirement from perspectives of 'general consumers' or 'common people'. In addition, the courts set 'reasonable use of product' or 'reasonable acceptance of service' as an additional prerequisite and allocate consumers such burden of proof for a claim of product and service liability. However, this opinion needs to be reexamined because it differs from the article 7 under Consumer Protection Law and even imposes excessive burden of proof on consumers. Furthermore, other mechanisms such as causation or contributory negligence are gatekeepers to maintain the function of civil liability and compensation for damage. Consequently, the courts have no reason to overemphasize the importance of the requirement. Last but not least, product certification or regulations compliance are just one of elements or the lowest standard to consider whether the requirement of reasonably expected safety is met. On the other hand, if entrepreneurs can prove that the service is certified or meet relative regulations, the service with reasonably expected safety may be inferred. On the differences, in terms of product liability, if hidden defects reveal after products are used for a while, the courts are more likely to consider that the consumers fail to prove the lack of reasonably expected safety. Nonetheless, this opinion not only contradicts Consumer Protection Law but improperly distribute the burden of proof to consumers. Secondly, the results of expert testimony unnecessarily have positive relations to reasonably expected safety due to objects of testimony. The specific products, which might be damaged or destroyed in accidents, are often replaced with “the same kind of products” in testimony. Therefore, the result is a hypothetical situation in essence. Even if the result meets the requirement of the safety, it’s unnecessarily inferred that the specific product has the safety. With regard to service liability, the courts tend to confuse reasonably expected safety with negligence while could solve the problem by clarifying the imputation of causes based on service liability under Consumer Protection Law and civil contractual liability or tort liability. Meanwhile, even service meets the standard of the same profession, the service unnecessarily satisfies the criteria of reasonably expected safety because such standard merely represents the lowest standard of reasonably expected safety.