消費者損害賠償訴訟中舉證責任分配之相關問題

Abstract

在現代社會中可謂每個人都是消費者，而各種消費爭議也隨之而生。基於消費爭議本身的特殊性，傳統民事訴訟尚無法完全解決這些複雜且多元的消費爭議所產生之問題，因此為保障消費者權益以及交易安全，我國於民國83年制定消費者保護法，而消費爭議所衍生的消費訴訟亦不免面臨應如何舉證以及舉證責任之歸屬問題。舉證責任係為民事訴訟成敗之關鍵，負擔舉證責任之當事人往往須承擔敗訴之風險，而在我國消費者保護法與民法商品製造人責任的雙軌體系下，負舉證責任之一方，應如何證明才算是盡其舉證責任。此外，依我國消費者保護法第7條規定僅要求企業經營者就商品或服務於提供時應具符合當時科技或專業水準可合理期待之安全性負擔舉證責任，但在商品或服務所生損害及其因果關係並無明確規定，亦得回歸一般民法侵權行為之規定，由消費者負擔舉證責任。然而在消費訴訟中，證據往往偏在於企業經營者，以致消費者取得證據困難，在實務上或可視個案情況依我國民事訴訟法第277條但書之規定，減輕消費者舉證責任。本文進一步藉由我國近年消費者損害賠償訴訟實務案例進行討論及建議，以期兼顧消費者及企業經營者雙方之權益，公平合理分配舉證責任，以健全良好的消費關係，並且促進訴訟經濟。

In modern society, it so-calls everyone is a consumer, giving rise to a variety of consumer disputes. Due to the unique nature of the consumer disputes, traditional civil litigation cannot fully resolve these complicate and multifaceted consumer disputes. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of consumers and the safety of transaction, the Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1994. Inevitably, consumer lawsuits are also confronted with the question of how the burden of proof should be proved and where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof is the key to success in litigation, and the party with the burden of proof often bears the risk of losing the case. Under the dual system of the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Law on the manufacturer’s liability, the party who bears the burden of proof should how to prove it in order to discharge its burden of proof. Additionally, according to Article 7 of Consumer Protection Act, it only requires traders to bear the burden of ensuring that goods or services provided meet and comply with the contemporary technical and professional standards with reasonably expected safety requirements, but does not specifically address damage caused by goods or services and their causal relationship. Consumers also have to bear the burden of proof under general Civil Law torts. In consumer litigation, however, the evidence tends to favor the traders, making it difficult for consumers to obtain evidence. In practice, depending on the facts of the case, the burden of proof on the consumer may be reduced in application of the proviso of Article 277 of Civil Procedure Code. This article further makes discussions and suggestions by reviewing recent cases in Taiwan, to take care of the interests of both consumers and traders, and to allocate the burden of proof in a fair and reasonable manner, in order to improve consumer relationships and litigation economics.