問18
頻出度★★☆
製造物責任法によって責任を問われるのはどのケースか。
平成23年度 秋期 ITパスポート試験 問18
ストラテジ系法務 › 労働関連・取引関連法規
This question's explanation and your answers so far.
解説
問 18
Incorrectア
Selling products to a retail store on the condition that the resale price be maintained (resale price maintenance) takes away the retailer's freedom to set prices and restricts competition, so it is an unfair trade practice prohibited by the Antimonopoly Act. It is a problem about the terms of a transaction, not damage caused by a defect in a product, so it is not covered by the PL Act.
Incorrectイ
Advertising that misleads people into believing a product has functions it does not actually have is a misrepresentation of superior quality, an improper representation regulated by the Premiums and Representations Act (Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations). What is at issue is whether the advertising is proper, not harm to life, body, or property caused by a safety defect in the product itself, so this belongs to the Premiums and Representations Act, not the PL Act.
- ウ
正解 The correct answer is ウ. The Product Liability (PL) Act makes a manufacturer or similar party liable for damages when a “defect” in a product it has delivered causes harm to another person's life, body, or property. A defect here means that the product “lacks the safety it should ordinarily provide,” and it covers design defects, manufacturing defects, and defects in instructions or warnings. Choice ウ describes a product that poses a danger such as overheating and causing burns even when used according to the instruction manual — in other words, personal injury can occur even when the correct usage specified by the maker is followed, which is exactly a defective product that lacks the safety it should ordinarily provide. So the case in which liability is incurred under the PL Act is ウ. A major feature of the PL Act is that the victim can claim compensation without proving intent or negligence on the manufacturer's part, as long as they show that the product had a defect, that damage occurred, and that there is a causal link between the two (liability without fault). From the standpoint of consumer protection, it supplements tort liability under the Civil Code.
Incorrectエ
Selling a product that could be diverted for use as a weapon to a country suspected of supporting terrorism, without permission from the competent ministry, violates security export control (the export licensing system) under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act. It is a matter of violating export controls, not something covered by the PL Act, which deals with compensation for damage caused by a defect in a product.
ここがポイント
- Requirements for applying the Product Liability (PL) Act: when a delivered product has a “defect” (it lacks the safety it should ordinarily provide) and that defect causes harm to life, body, or property, the manufacturer or similar party bears liability for damages even without fault. A product that is dangerous even when used exactly as the instruction manual says is a typical defective product.
- Distinguish the scope of consumer and trade related laws that are easy to confuse: restricting competition, such as resale price maintenance, falls under the Antimonopoly Act; exaggerated or false advertising that differs from reality falls under the Premiums and Representations Act; and exporting goods divertible to weapons without permission falls under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (security export control). Be able to match each case to the law that applies.
用語