問35
頻出度★★☆
PL法(製造物責任法)によって, 製造者に顧客の損害に対する賠償責任が生じる要件はどれか。 [事象A] 損害の原因が, 製造物の欠陥によるものと証明された。 [事象B] 損害の原因である製造物の欠陥が, 製造者の悪意によるものと証明された。 [事象C] 損害の原因である製造物の欠陥が, 製造者の管理不備によるものと証明された。 [事象D] 損害の原因である製造物の欠陥が, 製造プロセスの欠陥によるものと証明された。
平成30年度 春期 ITパスポート試験 問35
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 35
- ア
正解 The PL Act (Product Liability Act) is a law that establishes no-fault liability. Its defining feature is that even when the manufacturer has no intent or negligence (fault), the manufacturer is held liable for compensation as long as a product defect causes damage to a consumer. All the victim (the customer) must prove in order to claim compensation is the causal relationship that (1) the product had a defect and (2) that defect was the cause of the damage. This corresponds exactly to Event A. The aim of the PL Act is to protect victims by not placing on them the burden of proving the manufacturer's intent or negligence, so the only required condition is Event A, and the other events are not needed. Therefore the correct answer is 'ア'.
Incorrectイ
This also requires Event B (the defect being due to the manufacturer's malice). Because the PL Act imposes no-fault liability, there is no need to prove the manufacturer's intent (malice). Making proof of malice a condition would place an excessive burden on the victim and go against the purpose of the PL Act.
Incorrectウ
This also requires Event C (the defect being due to the manufacturer's poor management). Proving poor management is nothing other than proving the manufacturer's negligence, which is unnecessary under the PL Act's no-fault liability. Imposing liability without regard to negligence is what distinguishes it from the general tort liability under civil law.
Incorrectエ
This also requires Event D (the defect being due to a defect in the manufacturing process). What the PL Act asks is whether a defect exists in the product; the victim does not need to identify and prove from which process or cause the defect arose (whether or not it originated in the manufacturing process).
ここがポイント
- The PL Act (Product Liability Act) imposes no-fault liability: the victim only needs to prove that the product had a defect and that there is a causal relationship between the defect and the damage, and does not need to prove the manufacturer's intent or negligence (fault).
- In contrast to the general tort liability (fault liability) under civil law, the core of the PL Act lies in lightening the victim's burden of proof and protecting consumers.
用語