从美国产品责任归责原则的发展看我国产品责任的完善

产品责任法上世纪60年代产生于美国,是现代工业和科学技术发展的产物.随后得到了迅速的发展.而作为产品责任的重要构成要件--归责原则,在美国也得到了系统的完善.本文从美国产品责任的归责原则的发展历史开始介绍,从中寻求如何完善我国的产品责任.     

小巧实用的间谍软件清理利器

间谍软件往往是寄生在其它正常的软件中,或是上网时偷偷安装在你的系统中的,这类软件在分类上并不属于病毒,但危害却不可小视。它们不但可以盗取个人信息、上网信息,而且还可以通过恶意拔号程序把你的电脑连接到外国,产生巨额话费。下面就为大家推荐一款小巧的间谍软件清理工具XoftSpyV3.45,它可以帮助你快速扫描隐藏在系统中已知的间谍程序,还提供注册表检查功能。应用平台:Windows9x/NT/2000/XP。官方下载地址:http:∥spybot-Spywafe.com/     

国际产品责任的归责原则及理性启示

由于产品责任源自合同理论与侵权理论的结合,合同责任与侵权责任构成了产品责任的基础。追究产品责任必须廓清和界分以合同责任为基础、侵权责任为基础以及两者竞合时的产品责任归责原则,只有在此基础上跟踪国际产品责任归责原则的新趋向,才能对我国产品责任的归责原则作出科学的定位和理性的抉择。     

趋势:间谍软件能动谁的奶酪?

据美国互联网服务提供商Earthlink发表的一篇报告显示,平均每台家用计算机感染了28个间谍软件。可以说间谍软件已经是无孔不入,并已成为企业、高级商务人士的一块心病。然而趋势科技却从中嗅到了商机。     

浅析产品缺陷——兼与产品瑕疵比较

产品缺陷是《产品质量法》中一个重要的法律概念,其实质是产品缺乏合理的安全性。其引起的损害赔偿责任为民事侵权责任,以对产品之外的人身或财产有损害为构成要件。承担责任的方式为民事赔偿,主体是生产者,销售者只有在有过错的情况下才承担责任。产品缺陷与产品瑕疵是两个不同的法律概念,二者在判断标准、承担责任的性质、方式、构成要件及责任主体、索赔途径等方面均有本质区别。     

浅析产品缺陷－兼与产品瑕疵比较

产品缺陷是《产品质量法》中一个重要的法律概念，其实质是产品缺乏合理的安全性。其引起的损害赔偿责任的民事侵权责任，以对产品之外的人身或财产有损害为构成要件。承担责任的方式为民事赔偿，主体是生产，销售只有在有过错 的情况下承担责任。产品缺陷与产品瑕疵是两个不同的法律概念，二在判断标准、承担责任的性质、方式、构成及责任主体、索赔途径等方面的有本质区别。     

从美国产品责任归责原则的发展看我国产品责任的完善

产品责任法上世纪60年代产生于美国,是现代工业和科学技术发展的产物。随后得到了迅速的发展。而作为产品责任的重要构成要件——归责原则,在美国也得到了系统的完善。本文从美国产品责任的归责原则的发展历史开始介绍,从中寻求如何完善我国的产品责任。     

试论产品责任的归责原则

产品责任归责原则是确定生产者和销售者民事责任的依据和标准.我国现行有关产品责任的法律根据生产者和销售者的不同地位,分别实行严格责任和过错责任、过错推定责任原则,以及两者之间的替代责任原则.根据实践中产品责任侵权现象出现的新情况,为顺应时代潮流,在我国产品责任相关立法中,应把严格责任明确规定为产品责任的归责原则,并进一步加以完善.     

索尼旧病复发

2007年9月,素尼生产的MicroVault型号指纹识别U盘驱动程序被指责暗藏间谍软件.据称,驱动程序会在Windows系统内安装一个隐藏的rootkit程序文件夹,能躲过杀毒软件的扫描,很容易被黑客用来藏匿恶意代码,窃取用户密码或者发送垃圾邮件.     

从美国产品责任归责原则的发展看我国产品责任的完善

产品责任法上世纪60年代产生于美国，是现代工业和科学技术发展的产物。随后得到了迅速的发展。而作为产品责任的重要构成要件——归责原则，在美国也得到了系统的完善。本文从美国产品责任的归责原则的发展历史开始介绍，从中寻求如何完善我国的产品责任。     

销售者的产品责任归责原则辨正

《侵权责任法》关于销售者的产品责任归责原则的规定既不是无过错责任,也不是过错责任,更不是无过错责任与过错责任的结合。过错责任原则符合产品责任制度的发展趋势,应该成为销售者的产品责任归责原则的理性选择。但只有修改相关立法,销售者的产品责任归责原则才能得以明确。     

美国产品责任制度的博弈分析——兼论我国产品责任制度的最优战略

美国产品责任法对许多工业化国家的产品责任立法有重大影响,从某种意义上讲,其基本理论的演进是生产和消费双方博弈的结果,正是这种博弈催生了法律制度的最优战略选择。本文在分析美国产品责任法发展历史的基础上,用博弈论的方法分析了不同产品责任制度下的战略选择,并对我国产品责任法从理论基础、赔偿范围和标准等方面提出了有针对性的建议。     

Investigation of Products Liability Attitudes and Opinions: A Consumer Perspective

The area of product safety and products liability legislation has been the subject of a great deal of academic research. Policymakers and business executives have been surveyed to determine their attitudes toward liability and product safety concerns. In addition, a substantial amount of research has focused on the impact of products liability trial outcomes on business and public policy. However, there are relatively few studies reporting opinions, attitudes, and predispositions of consumers regarding relevant liability topics. This article explores the consumer perspective on several critical questions relating to products liability and product safety. The results indicate a wide divergence of opinion exists among consumers on key issues shaping current trends in the products liability legal environment. Implications for consumers, business, and public policy are discussed.     

Product liability and safety: Perspectives from business versus public policy makers

Product liability and the improvement of product safety are major concerns confronting business executives and public policy makers. This article reports the results of a mail survey that explored some of the major issues surrounding product liability and safety. The survey solicited the opinions of manufacturing executives, insurance executives, and state insurance commissions. Analysis of the data involved comparison of the opinions of the three groups of respondents. In general, the respondents agreed that (1) the increased emphasis on safety has caused prices to rise, but products are safer; (2) the salesforce should be used more as a source of information on the safe use of products; (3) a good safety record is a competitive edge for a manufacturing firm; (4) small businesses should not be treated more leniently than large ones in product liability cases; and (5) the CPSC's activities have generally been favorable. In contrast, manufacturing and insurance executives were more negative regarding the application and enforcement of strict liability than were insurance commission respondents.     

Strict Product Liability and the Unfairness Objection

In this paper I examine the most common objection to strict product liability: that it is unfair to manufacturers. Critics have maintained that it is unfair because it allows manufacturers to be held liable even when they have not been negligent, and are not morally blameworthy or at fault. In response to this objection, I argue 1) that there are in fact cases in which it is at least somewhat unfair to manufacturers to impose compensation requirements upon them in accordance with the strict product liability doctrine, but 2) that there is also a class of cases in which it is fair to manufacturers to hold them responsible for compensating injured product users, as strict product liability requires, even though they have not been negligent and are not morally blameworthy or at fault. My analysis of the fairness issue provides a basis for some concluding remarks about the defensibility of the strict product liability doctrine.     

An introduction to the product liability debate

No other field of consumer law has been subjected to such a heated debate as product liability. Unfortunately, the main feature of the debate is rhetorical overload. A surprisingly great amount of misleading and even false information has been put forward. Such a number of unsubstantiatable “horror stories” has been circulated in such ways that it may be hard not to get the impression that it is done by purpose, not by mistake, the purpose being to alleviate or forestall any product liability caused financial burden on industry through the injection of a false atmosphere of panic into the commercial and political scene. On this background the paper contains a rather general outline of product liability law — the law as it stands today and some proposals for reform — in Europe and in the U.S.A. in connection with a basic comparative analysis of differences and similarities. The paper gives nothing more than an overview. For instance, it does not define, analyze, or discuss the consumer policy aspects of product liability.     

法治进步倒逼我国会展业发展转型——以展品的产品责任风险为例

我国会展业近30年的粗放发展已经与外部社会环境和法治进步形成了某种风险反差,而长期以来业内对风险的模糊意识和无所作为也不断侵蚀着行业发展的可持续性。例如,《侵权责任法》上产品责任是商业展会的一项集中风险,它蕴藏在各种展品之中。我国相关法律条文及判例已彰显展会组织者需为此担责的指向。其中,《消费者权益保护法》第43条更载明展会组织者为此承担"无过错责任"。1[1]这符合"消费者特别保护"的国际潮流、客观上也使展会组织者风险陡然高企。更为重要的是:这将倒逼我国会展业由外延发展向内涵发展的模式转型,是行业走向成熟的客观必然。     

The Ethics of Innovation: p2p Software Developers and Designing Substantial Noninfringing Uses Under the Sony Doctrine

This essay explores the controversy over peer-to-peer (p2p) software, examining the legal and ethical dimensions of allowing software companies to develop p2p technologies. It argues that, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sony betamax case, technology developers must be accorded the freedom to innovate and develop technologies that are capable of substantial noninfringing uses. This doctrine, known as the Sony doctrine, provides an important safe harbor for technological development, including p2p. The safe harbor, however, does not immunize conduct beyond the design, sale, or supply of the product. For other conduct that falls outside the Sony safe harbor, the traditional standards of secondary liability apply.     

Product liability and product safety-complementary approaches to consumer safety. Some observations of the situation in the EEA

Abstract

In this paper the author asserts that product liability and product safety are complementary instruments to achieve a safer environment for consumers. Whereas legislation on product liability has a remedying function, legislation on product safety has a preventive one. The present situation in the EEA countries as regards the implementation of the Council Directives on Product Liability and Product Safety is summarized as well as the basic content of the Directives. It seems that almost all EEA countries have implemented the Liability Directive. The EFTA countries probably have-in comparison with the EU countries-to some extent a more positive implementation approach. It is too premature to foresee how the EEA countries will implement the Product Safety Directive of June 29, 1994. However, for many years most West European countries have had rules regulating product safety. The product safety policy in the EEA countries has been enhanced by co-operation within the OECD, the EU and the EFTA. Market control co-ordination will be an important part of the EEA efforts in the future to increase safety for consumers.     

The impact of 1992 on product liability in Europe

MNCs with plans for marketing within the EC after 1992 may want to prepare now for developments stemming from a directive calling for a tough stand on product liability within the European Community.