老年消费者安全保障义务之“合理限度”认定浅窥  

Definition on “Reasonable Limitation” of safeguard obligation: considering elderly consumers as object

作　　者：杜乐其[1] 钱宇弘 

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210093 [2]江苏漫修律师事务所,江苏苏州215000

出　　处：《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2014年第6期133-138,共6页Journal of Central South University：Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"农村法律文化与农民权利发展问题研究"(12BFX013);教育部人文社科基金项目"底层视角下农民维权与权利发展问题研究"(12YJC820076);江苏省社科基金"江苏城乡一体化进程中农民权利发展问题研究"(13FXD016)

摘　　要：在不同消费领域所产生的老年消费者权益纠纷案件中,法院在认定经营者是否已尽"合理限度"安全保障义务时,一般均以"软硬件"为标准。但在严格遵循这一标准前提下,法院通常对此类案件中的受害人——老年消费者的身份因素给予特殊考量,并以此课以经营者较高的安全保障义务。基于老年消费者身体特征与经济法实质正义价值,法院此种做法无可厚非。但司法实务案例表明,在法院认定经营者是否已尽"合理限度"义务过程中,存在泛化"老年人"身份因素的司法倾向。此种倾向不仅限制经营者行动自由,甚至威胁到为老年人提供福祉的相关行业的健康发展。因此,法律必须对此种倾向予以克制,以实现主体间的利益平衡与社会有序发展。Among the elderly consumers cases in different fields, courts usually depend on “software and hardware” to affirm whether business operators have taken “reasonable limit” safeguard obligation. But on the premise of observing this criterion, courts also give a special consideration on elderly consumers in these cases, and endow more obligation on business operators. Perhaps, it is reasonable for courts based on elderly consumers characters and value of substantive justice from economic law. But many cases indicate that courts have a judicial inclination of excessive consideration on elderly consumers. This inclination not only limits the freedom of business operators, but also threatens development of related industries offering welfare for eldrely people. Legislation must restrain this inclination in order to fulfill the balance between parties and orderly development.

关 键 词：安全保障义务 合理限度 老年消费者 经营者 

分 类 号：D912.29[政治法律—民商法学]