請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74899
標題: | 論食品安全事件之民事責任—食品安全衛生管理法第56條之評析 A Study on the Civil Liabilities in Food Safety Related Incidents- Comment on Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation Article 56 |
作者: | Yu-Shuang Cheng 鄭育霜 |
指導教授: | 陳忠五 |
關鍵字: | 食品安全事件,食品安全衛生管理法,商品責任,消費者權益保障,實際損害額,民法商品製造人責任,消保法商品責任, Food Safety Related Incidents,Act Governing Food Safety And Sanitation,Products Liability,Consumer Protection,Actual Amount of Damage,Manufacturer’s Liability in Civil Code,Products Liability in Consumer Protection Act, |
出版年 : | 2019 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 我國食品安全事件層出不窮,在食品衛生的行政管理上,我國有食品安全衛生管理法(下稱食衛法)予以規範。在民事責任上,食安事件中的問題食品多係在市場上流通之商品,故食安事件之被害人時常主張消費者保護法(下稱消保法)與民法的商品責任相關規定,即消保法第7至9條與民法第191-1條。然而,塑化劑事件與黑心油事件中的被害人,縱使能成功證明該問題食品具有欠缺,然而被害人多未產生具體的病徵,更無實際的醫藥費支出。此種情形導致被害人求償時遭遇了許多困難,例如:難以判斷其身體、健康是否受侵害與其實際損害額多寡等。
為落實消費者權益保障,立法者於2013至2014年時,在食衛法(下同)中,先後增訂了第56條第1項財產上損害賠償請求權基礎、第2項非財產上損害賠償請求與準用消保法第47條至第55條(包含懲罰性賠償金)、第3項實際損害額酌定(若消費者不易或不能證明其實際損害額時,法院得在特定金額範圍內予以酌定)等規範。由於食品屬於商品之一類,立法者亦明確表示第56條第1項係採取了民法第191-1條商品製造人責任之立法例,故本文認為第56條第1項屬於商品責任之一環,且食安事件具有其特殊性。故本文以我國雙軌制商品責任之立法模式差異為比較對象,並考量食安事件之特殊性,針對第56條的解釋論與立法論問題予以分析,並提出立法建議。 首先,第56條第1項的財產上損害賠償請求權基礎,係以違反同法的第15條第1項第3、7、10款、第16條第1款(特定行為的禁止規定)作為前提,因此,上開規範劃定了第56條第1項的適用範圍與其他要件,其故意過失與因果關係的要件則參照民法第191-1條,採取了推定過失與推定因果關係之立法。 立法上,在比較我國商品責任立法模式之發展與對消費者保障的程度後,本文認為,第56條第1項責任宜採取消保法商品責任之立法例。在責任主體範圍上,本條擴張及於運送、貯存、輸出業者,彰顯了對消費者權利的加強保護,值得肯定。然各責任主體之歸責原則應區分論之,製造、加工、調配、輸入、輸出業者應負無過失責任,其餘則負推定過失責任。商品欠缺之要件上,本條應擴張及於第15條第1項與第16條各款。因果關係之舉證責任,則應同消保法商品責任,回歸一般分配原則而不予倒置。 其次,第56條第2項與第3項之規範(非財產上損害賠償請求、懲罰性賠償金、實際損害額酌定)係立法者考量到,食安事件被害人在求償上有特別不利之情形,故基於政策目的予以立法,本文對此立法表示肯定,僅於解釋上予以分析。 Numerous Food Safety Related Incidents have happened in Taiwan. The food hygiene control system is governed by the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation.When it comes to the civil liabilities in food safety related incidents, the defected food is also the products circulated in the market. As a result, the victims usually claim damages under Article 191-1 of the Civil Code and Article 7, 8, 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, which belong to Taiwanese Product Liabilities System. However, no obvious physiological symptoms were noted in victims of “Plasticizer Incident” and “Gutter Oil Incident” after consuming the defected food; therefore, these victims had paid no medical expenses. Accordingly, these victims encountered difficulties to satisfying burden of proof for the damage to their body and the actual amount of damage. For the protection of consumer, Paragraph 1, 2, 3 of Article 56 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (hereinafter called the ‘Article 56’ or ‘Article 56 (1)’, etc.) were separately enacted in 2013 and 2014, which award Property damages, Non-Pecuniary damages, Punitive damages to injured consumers, and award the Court the right to determine the compensation in the amount of specific range, when it’s hard for consumers to provide evidence to support the actual amount of damage. Because food is similar to products, and Legislator also mentioned that Article 56 was based on the legislation of Article 191-1 of the Civil Code, this thesis considers that Article 56 is part of Product Liabilities System, and there are different problems in Food Safety Related Incidents. Thus, to comment on Article 56, this thesis compares Product Liabilities System with Article 56, especially focusing on the unique problem in Food Safety Related Incidents. First of all, Article 56(1) is based on the infringement of Article 15(1) Subparagraph 3, 7, 10, and Article 16 Subparagraph 1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation. Therefore, the range of application and the Wrongfulness of Article 56(1) is also based on these regulations. Similar to Article 191-1 of Civil Code, the burden of proof for negligence and causation in Article 56(1) is on the food businesses who violate Article 15(1) Subparagraph 3, 7, 10, and Article 16 Subparagraph 1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation. After considering the development of Taiwanese Products Liability and comparing the protection of consumer, as a suggestion for legislation, this thesis indicates that Article 56(1) should be based on the legislation of Products Liability in Consumer Protection Act. The expansion of subject to Article 56(1) shows the enhancements to consumer protection, which is praiseworthy. However, the degree of liability of each subject should be different. Food businesses that engage in the manufacture, processing, preparation, import or export of foods, food utensils, food containers or food cleansers, should be subject to No-fault liability, other food businesses that engage in the packaging, transportation, storage or sale should be subject to presumption of negligence. The Defect Products of Article 56(1) should be expanded to every Subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 16 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation. The the burden of proof for causation in Article 56(1) should be on the cosumer. Article 56(2) and (3) are legislated to solve the difficulties that make victims fall from claiming damages, which is based on the purpose of policies, and this legislation is praiseworthy. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/74899 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201904187 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 4.57 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。