| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 105 === Abstract
In recent years, food safety incidents happened again and again. Scandals involving modified starch, plasticizers and cooking oil all have attracted serious public attention. Despite the fact that the government has taken various administrative measures to strengthen controls over food safety, how to ensure that the victimized consumers can get reasonable compensation has become a focused issue in society.
In response to the obvious disparity between the public's expectations and the first instance judgements over the plasticizer contamination incidents. Article 56 of the Food Safety Law was amended and promulgated on Nov.18, 2014. It stipulates that only when the manufacturer is able to prove that the damage is not caused by its illegal acts or that it has done its best to prevent the damage from happening, can it be exempted from being responsible for the damage. Besides, it also stipulates that the court may determine the upper limit amount of compensatory damages if the consumer has difficulty or is unable to prove the actual loss. The amendment has redistributed the burden of proof between the manufacturer and the consumer through legislation. However, by observing the judgements made in the courts, we have found the fact that consumers seldom win in lawsuits or that the amount of compensation can't cover the damage. The causes may be as follows. First, in food safety lawsuits, the consumer still has difficulty proving the "occurrence of damage" and the "cause and consequence". Second, the ability to give evidence between the manufacturer and the consumer is obviously unequal (the distribution of the burden of proof). Third, it is difficult to apply scientific evidence.
In conclusion, this article is centered on Article 56 of the Food Safety Law to study the difficulties of legal judgements. Besides, by studying other kinds of public safety hazards and medical disputes and referring to better-developed law theories and the practice examples of other countries, I hope that we can make a breakthrough in favor of the consumer in the face of possible difficulties in the legal proceedings when seeking compensation.
|
|---|
