Article 1204
If the product is defective due to the fault of the transporter, warehouse or other third party, causing damage to others, the producer or seller of the product shall have the right to recover from the third party after compensation.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the provisions of the tort liability and recovery rules for the damage caused by the defect of the product caused by the fault of a third party.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Article 122 of the original General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that "if the property or personal injury of others is caused by substandard product quality, the manufacturer or seller of the product shall bear civil liability in accordance with the law." If the transporter or warehouse bears the responsibility, the product manufacturer or seller has the right to claim compensation for the loss. Article 44 of the original Tort Liability Law refines this and stipulates that: "If a product is defective due to the fault of a third party such as a transporter or a warehouser, causing damage to others, the producer or seller of the product shall have the right to recover compensation from the third party after compensation." This provision is retained in this article.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a provision for the liability of third parties in product liability.
In typical product liability, the entities that bear the non-genuine joint and several liability in product liability are the producer and the seller. In addition, the main body of responsibility in product liability is the third party, that is, in product liability, in addition to the producer and seller, other parties who are at fault for the defects of the product and cause damage to the victim should bear the tort liability. This article lists transporters and waremen, for example, all responsible entities that meet such requirements are third parties responsible for product liability, such as raw material suppliers.
The constitutive elements for a third party to bear product liability are: (1) the product in dispute is defective, (2) the product defect is not caused by the producer or seller, but by a third party, (3) the third party makes the product defective and is subjectively negligent, and (4) the defective product is the cause of the damage caused by the infringed party and has a causal relationship. If the above requirements are met, it constitutes the third-party liability in product liability.
The third-party liability in product liability is a kind of pre-payment liability, because in the case of non-genuine joint and several liability, several responsible parties are subject to intermediate liability, and the infringed party, as the claimant, can claim full liability from either party. However, the rule of third-party liability is special, that is, it is necessary to first claim compensation from the producer or seller who is not at fault, and then they can recover from the third party after they have assumed the liability.
This kind of rule that does not apply the general rule of non-genuine joint and several liability but applies in a precedent and requires the entity that bears intermediate liability to bear the responsibility first, is called the pre-payment liability of non-genuine joint and several liability, which is a deformed form of non-genuine joint and several liability. Therefore, in the third-party liability of product liability, the infringed party should first claim compensation from the producer or seller, and after the producer or seller bears the liability for compensation, they should seek compensation from the third party.
The advantage of this rule is that it is in favor of the infringed party's claim, because the third party is hidden behind the apparent legal relationship, and it is difficult for the infringed party to prove its fault. Stipulate the liability to be paid in advance, so as to facilitate the infringed party to exercise the right to claim, and the relief is more convenient. However, there is a risk of such a rule, that is, when both the producer and the seller lose the ability to compensate, according to the provisions of this article, the infringed party cannot directly claim compensation from a third party. In this regard, the infringed party may directly exercise the right to claim compensation against a third party in accordance with the principle of fault liability stipulated in Article 1165 of the Civil Code.
4. Cases
Tian Yuan Company v. Qilu Company, a product liability dispute
Facts: Tian Yuan Company specializes in the production of shed film and salt film. Tian Yuan Company has received reports from dealers across the country that some vegetable farmers who use "Tianyuan" greenhouse film claim that the greenhouse vegetables they grow have died seriously. After professional investigation and analysis, this phenomenon is caused by the incorporation of harmful substances and volatilization of harmful gases into the raw materials for the production of shed film. The raw materials for the production of the plaintiff's shed film were purchased from Qilu Company, and after investigation, the raw materials provided by Qilu Company were qualified, but during transportation, the transporter secretly exchanged the qualified raw materials for raw materials containing harmful substances and delivered them to Tianyuan Company. The court of first instance held that although the quality inspection report provided by Qilu Company showed that the dioctyl ester produced by Qilu Company was a qualified product, it could be determined that the dioctyl ester products produced and sold by the defendant Qilu Company to the plaintiff were assigned by the defendant Xie Mouzhong to deliver goods to the plaintiff, which ultimately caused defects in the dioctyl ester products provided to the plaintiff Tianyuan Company. The plaintiff shall bear the losses caused by the production and sale of defective products. The defendant argued that the transporter, Xie Mouzhong, was responsible for the quality of the product and could claim it separately. The original verdict was upheld in the second instance.
5. Analysis
In this case, Tian Yuan Company was the producer of the greenhouse film and salt film, and the "Tianyuan" brand greenhouse film produced by it had manufacturing defects due to the presence of toxic substances, which led to the serious death of the greenhouse vegetables claimed to have been planted by the vegetable farmers who purchased and used the greenhouse film. Tian Yuan, as the producer of the shed film, has assumed the responsibility for the damage caused by its products to vegetable farmers. After Tian Yuan Company assumed product liability to vegetable farmers, it could recover compensation from Qilu Company, the supplier of raw materials, and Xie Mouzhong, the transporter of raw materials, who caused the defects in its shed film. As for the division of responsibility between the two ultimate responsible persons, the transporter Xie Mouzhong's unauthorized adulteration of toxic substances in the raw materials was the main reason, and the raw material supplier Qilu Company did not perform the corresponding supervision and management duties to the transporter, and there was also a certain fault for the defects, and the two should determine their respective share of responsibility according to the degree of fault and causality.