論商品製造人責任中服務欠缺安全性在概念上之研析──最高法院110年度台上字第1425號判決與最高法院105年度台上字第1905號判決

Manufacturer of Goods in Service Lacking Safety Focusing on Civil Judgement of Taiwan Supreme Court (110) No. 1425 and (105) No. 1905

我國消費者保護法第7條至第10條規定商品製造人責任，保護之內容包含商品與服務之安全性，並為了減輕消費者之舉證上負擔，採無過失責任主義，然而對於「服務」並未在法條上給予明確定義，造成法規適用之困難。因此學者分別提出其對於「服務」概念之見解，定義上可區分為廣義說與限制說，由於廣義說對於服務完全未予設限之結果，無形中擴張了消費者保護法中商品製造人責任規定之適用範圍，限制說則是限縮服務之適用範圍，在結果上較為合理。實務裁判中通常未給予服務直接之定義，而係依案件事實之具體情形，判斷企業經營者所提供之服務是否欠缺安全性，使得服務之概念依然具有討論之空間。

The responsibility of the manufacturer of goods includes the safety of goods and services. In order to reduce the burden of proof on consumers, the Consumer Protection Act adopts strict liability. However, there is no clear definition of“service”in the law, which makes it difficult to apply the law. Scholars have different views on the concept of“service”, including the“broad interpretation”and the“limited interpretation”. The application of the“broad interpretation”has invariably expanded the scope of responsibility of the manufacturer of goods in the Consumer Protection Law, while the“limited interpretation”seems to be more reasonable in limiting the scope of services. Rather, the Judgements usually determine whether the services provided by the entrepreneur are unsafe or not through the specific circumstances of the case, leaving room for discussion of the concept of service.