Институт ответственности за вред, причиненный дефектной продукцией, в законодательстве России: большой потенциал или клубок противоречий?

Abstract

The article provides a comparative analysis of the Russian and foreign law on product liability issues. The author concludes that on a number of key points (the concept of «product», the liability of seller as well as manufacturer, the shortened list of grounds for exemption from liability) the Russian model of liability for defective product is much more pro-consumer than its analogues in foreign law. However, this leads to some difficulties in law enforcement. At the same time, the broad definition of defective products as any goods, works and services (including immovables, professional services, etc.) leads to conflicts with other grounds of liability, as well as to the excessive application of the product liability rules. The equal liability of the manufacturer and the seller to the consumer, provided by the Russian law, regardless of the seller’s influence on manufacturing process, seems unfair and not typical for the legislation of foreign countries. Finally, the limited list of circumstances in Art. 1098 of the Civil Code exempting the manufacturer or seller from liability, formulated without considering modern technologies of production and promotion of goods, autonomy of some goods or their universal purpose (suitability for personal and professional use), can also lead to an unfair distribution of risks between the manufacturer and the consumer. The above negative aspects point to the need to reform the institute in question, including the clarification of its scope.