A comparative study of car defect detection criteria in Iranian, British and American law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor, Private Law Group,Faculty of law and political Sciences, University of mazandaran, babolsar, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Science and Research Branch Tehran, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student in private law, Faculty of law and political Sciences, University of mazandaran, babolsar, Iran

Abstract

The manufacturer of a defective sold car, as its supplier, is responsible for any loss to the consumer or the third party. The supplier's civil liability is an important issue to consider theoretically and practically. There are many questions in this regard, such as: Can any deficiency or excess be considered as a defect? What are the standards for recognition of the defects in a car? Is the definition of the paragraph "g" of Article 2 of the car Consumer Protection Act Regulation comprehensive? Through studying the issue, we will find that any deficiency or excess is not considered as a defect. The criteria for recognition of a defect include both personal and customary criteria in the Iranian Law. The personal criteria cannot be comprehensive. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the defect. On the other hand, customary criteria can be also included the two meanings: local custom and customary person's expectations. Since a deficiency may be considered as a defect in a local custom, but not in another, considering the local custom as the criteria leads to the discrimination; however, the customary person's expectations criteria, as elected by the UK Law, seems to be 1 more comprehensive, provided that it combines with the risk-utility criteria. As a customary person's behaviors are stable in every place and time, it leads to the discrimination, with less probability. Accordingly, the definition of paragraph 1, "g" of Article 2 of the car Consumer Protection Act Regulation is not comprehensive.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. ابراهیمی، نصرالله (1386). «مسئولیت تولید کالای معیوب و حمایت از مصرف‌کنندگان (تحلیل در سه نظام حقوقی برتر دنیا)»، پژوهشنامۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی. سال دوم، ش 5.
    2. 2. امامی، حسن (1393). حقوق مدنی، ج1، چ 3، تهران: کتابفروشی اسلامیه.
    3. انصاری، مرتضی (1415). مکاسب، ج 5، چ 2 ،قم: المعتمر العالمی.
    4. 4. باریکلو، علیرضا (1398). «بررسی تطبیقی تحولات حاکم بر مسئولیت مبتنی بر تولید»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی. دورۀ 10، ش 1.
    5. پوراسدی، محمد؛ پوراسدی، شاهین؛ اشرف الکتابی، آویشا (1390). «آثار مسئولیت مدنی سازندگان خودرو در پرتو مقررات حمایت از حقوق مصرف‌کنندگان خودرو، در حقوق ایران و سایر نظام‌های حقوقی»، مطالعۀ مدیریت ترافیک. ش 23.
    6. جعفری‌تبار، حسن (1375). مسئولیت مدنی سازندگان و فروشندگان کالا، چ 1، تهران: انتشارات دادگستر.
    7. جعفری‌تبار، حسن (1396). مسئولیت مدنی کالاها، چ 1، تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
    8. خمینی، سید مصطفی (1379). کتاب الخیارات، چ 3، تهران: مؤسسۀ تنظیم و نشر آثار امام خمینی.
    9. سیاه‌بیدی کرمانشاهی، سعید (1396). «تحول مفهوم عیب در مسئولیت ناشی از عیب تولید»، رای. ش 18.
    10. شهیدی، مهدی (1389). مدنی 6 عقود معین، چ 12، تهران: مجمع علمی فرهنگی مجد.
    11. صفایی، سید حسین (1392). حقوق مدنی قواعد عمومی قراردادها، ج 2، چ 5، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان.
    12. علامه حلی، حسن‌بن یوسف (بی تا). القواعد الااحکام، چ 2، قم: انتشارات رضی، چاپ سنگی.
    13. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1397). مسئولیت ناشی از عیب تولید، چ 1، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه.
    14. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1399). قواعد عمومی قراردادها، ج 5، چ 4، تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
    15. کاتوزیان، ناصر (1399). عقود معین، ج1، چ 3، تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
    16. مـحقق حـلی (1409 ق). شرایع‌الاسلام فی مسائل الحلال و الحرام، چ 1، تهران: انتشارات استقلال.
    17. محقق کرکی‌ (1403 ق). جامع المقاصد، چ 3، قم: مؤسسۀ آل ‌البیت.
    18. میرزایی، اقبال علی و خالدی، علی (1397). «واکاوی اصل سلامت مبیع در فقه امامیه و حقوق ایران با تأکید بر حقوق مصرف‌کنندگان کالا»، دوفصلنامۀ تخصصی مطالعات فقه و اصول. سال اول، ش 1.
    19. نوری، علی و بزرگمهر، داوود (1397). «مفهوم عیب در حقوق مدنی»، مطالعات حقوق. ش 20.
    20. نوری، محمدعلی (1386). ترجمۀ قانون مدنی آلمان، چ 1، بخش معاملات و قراردادها، تهران: گنج دانش.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Anderson, James M. (2014). ”Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policy Makers“, RAND Corporation. RAND Corporation. Accessed august 27, 2016. Available at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports /RR400/RR443-1/RAND_RR443-1.pdf
    2. Barry, Keith. (2020). ”GM Recalls 5.9 million Trucks, SUVs for faulty takata airbags, consumer reports“, novamber 25, at https: www.consumerreports.orgcar-recalls-defectsgm-,2020 recalls- trucks-suvs-for-faulty-takata-airbags.
    3. Brown Laura SK. (2020). ”Honda Recalls 1.4 Million Vehicle, including430k for salt corrosion problem“, caranddriver, December 16,2020,at https:www.carranddriver.comnewsa34990029honda-civic-fit-accord-acura-ilx-driveshaft-recall.
    4. Castaing, Francois J. (1994). The Effects of Product Liability on Automotive Engineering Practice.National Academy of Engineering. Product Liability and Innovation: Managing Risk in an Uncertain Environment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4768.
    5. Field, Emily. (2017).” The Top Product Liability Cases Of 2016“. Midyear Report. Accessed Septamber 2, (2016). Available at:http://www.jstor.org/Stable/120086
    6. Lingeman Jake. (2020). ”Kia,Hyudai Recall 600,000 vehicles for fire risk,autoweek“, September 7,2020,at https:wwwautoweek.comnewsindustry-newsa33926842kia-hyundai-recall-600000-vehicle-for-fire-risk.
    7. Masterson, Patrick, (2020). ”The 10 biggest Recalls in 2019“, cars.com, junuary 14, 2020, at https:www.cars.comarticlesthe-10-biggest-recalls-in-2019-416480, Last visit: 1400/1/28
    8. Meyer Marshall W. (2020). ”covid lockdowns, social distancing, and fatal car crashes: more deaths on Hobbesian highways? “ PubMed centra1, u .s. national institutes of health, national library of medicine,December 21, 2020, at https: www.ncbi.nlm.govpmcarticlePMC7751747
    9. Monticello Mike (2019). ”car safety systems that could save your life, consumer reports“, june 25, 2019, at https:www.consumerreports.orgautomotive-technologycar-safety-systems-that-could-save- your-life.
    10. Moon, Mariella. (2015). ”Virginia Opens Up 70 Miles of Highway for Driverless Car Testing, Engadget“ Accessed April 2, 2016. Available at: http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/03/virginia-driverless-car-testing/.
    11. Mullis, Alastair & Oliphant, ken (2003). Torts. Palgrave mac milan.
    12. Muoio, Danielle. (2016). ” 19 Companies Racing to Put Self-Driving Cars on the Road By 2021, Bus. Insider“. Accessed April 5, 2016. Available at:http://www.businessinsider. com/compames-making-driverless-cars-by-2020-2016-10/#honda-is-aiming-to- produce-cars-that-are-completely-driverless-on-highways-by-2020-13.
    13. Norton, Patrick J. (1998). ”What Happens when Air Bags Kill: Automobile Manufacturers' Liability for Injuries Caused by Air Bags“, Case Western Reserve Law Review. Volume 48 issue 3. p. 665, pp. 659-723. Accessed august 24, 2016. Available at: http://scholarlycommons. law.case.edu/caselrev/vol. 48/iss377, Last visit: 97/8/9
    14. Psarommate, foivos. (2019). ”zero defect manufacturing: state- of- the-art review, shortcoming and future directing in research“. international journal of production Research.http:// doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1605228
    15. Steinkamp, Neil. (2016). ”Automotive Warranty & Recall Report, Stout Advisory“. Accessed April 5, 2017. Available at:https://www.stoutadvisory.com/insights/report/2016- automotive-warranty-recall-report
    16. shepardson David, (2021). ”U.s. agency orders ford to recall 3 million vehicles over air bags“, Reuters, January 19, 2021, at https: www. Reuters.comarticleus-ford-recallu-s- agency-orders-ford-to-recall-3-million-vehicles-over-air-bags-iduskbn290210?il=0.
    17. Swanson Derek H. , Dr. Lin Wei Zhonglun W&D (2011). China,A Corporate Approach to Preventive Management, Risk Reduction, and Case Coordination for Chinese Automakers« ,SECOND EDITION October 2009, McGuire Woods LLP Richmond, VA .PP. 1-29.
    18. Titcomb, James. (2017).”Dyson Plans to Launch Electric Car in 2020“..Telegraph . Accessed April 5, 2017. Available at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ 2017/09/26/dyson-build-first-electric-car-uk-2020/.
    19. Twerski, Aaron., and Henderson, James A. Jr. (2009). ”Manufacturer's Liability for Defective Product Designs: The Triumph of Risk-Utility“. Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Brooklyn law review. vol 74.3: 1061-1147. Accessed April 5, 2017. Accessed April 5, 2017: Available at:http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/794. Last visit9/8/97
    20. Valasek, Chris. and CharlieMiller. (2015). ”Remote Eexploitation of an Unaltered Passenger Vehicle“.. Accessed April 5, 2017. available at: https://ioactive.com/pdfs/IOActive_Remote_Car_Hacking.pdf.
    21. Wright .Richard W, (2007). ”The Principles of Product Liability, in Symposium, Products Liability: Litigation Trends on the 10th Anniversary of the Third Restatement“, 26 Rev. Litig. 1067 VOL. 26:4,P1076,PP1067-1152., Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/719. Last visit: 97/8/10

     

    ج) سایت‌ها

    1. https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2018/06/01/product-liability-lawsuit-filed-over-kia-car-seat/?slreturn=20180903062933. Who’s afraid of the Restatement (Third) of Torts?By Heather M. Bessinger and Nathaniel Cade, Jr.WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFFSeptember 17, 2010. Last visit: 97/8/10
    2. OADC Magazine, Spring 2003 By Michael “Sam” Sandmire, Partner Litigation Group

    https://wislawjournal.com/2010/09/17/whos-afraid-of-the-restatement-third-of-

    torts/2018 The Daily Reporter Publishing Co. | 225 E. Michigan St., Suite 300, Milwaukee, WI 53202. Last visit: 97/8/9

    1. Motor vehicle safety: Issues for congress. Updated junuary 26, 2021. Congress reaserch service. http: crsreports. Congress. Gov R46398. Last visit: 1400/1/28
    2. Monitor of Takata and the coordinated Remedy Program, update on the state of the Takata Airbag Recalls, Desamber 22, 2020,p. 2, at https: www.nhtsa. Govtakata- recall-spotlightstate- takata-air-bag-recalls-fourth-report. Last visit: 1400/1/28

     

    د) آرا

    1. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 450 N.E.2d 204, 208-09 (N.Y. 1983)
    2. Ault v. Int'l Harvester Co., 528 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Cal. 1974).
    3. Cantu V John Deere Co., 24wn. App.vol. 1, p. 603. 2d 839 (1979).
    4. دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9209970269400110 به تاریخ 16/2/1392 صادره از شعبۀ 51 دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران
    5. دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9109970220800601 به تاریخ 14/6/1391 صادره از دادگاه تجدیدنظر استان تهران
    6. دادنامۀ شمارۀ 9309970221600765 به تاریخ25/6/1393 صادره از شعبۀ 216 دادگاه عمومی حقوقی تهران

     

    ه) قوانین

    1. قانون حمایت از حقوق مصرف‌کنندگان خودرو مصوب 1386
    2. آیین‌نامۀ قانون حمایت از حقوق مصرف‌کنندگان خودرو مصوب 1395
    3. Consumer protection Act 1987 UK
    4. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 2(c) (Am. Law Inst. 1998).
    5. Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A cmt. g (Am. Law Inst. 1979).
Comparative Law Review
Volume 12, Issue 2
December 2021
Pages 397-415

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics