>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No. 3 of Trial of Five Typical Cases on Food and Pharmaceutical Product Dispute Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Pi Minmin v. Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd., Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd., and et al. (Product liability dispute)
最高人民法院公布五起审理食品药品纠纷典型案例之三:皮旻旻诉重庆远东百货有限公司、重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司等产品责任纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort ★
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance

No. 3 of Trial of Five Typical Cases on Food and Pharmaceutical Product Dispute Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Pi Minmin v. Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd., Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd., and et al. (Product liability dispute)
(Product liability dispute)
最高人民法院公布五起审理食品药品纠纷典型案例之三:皮旻旻诉重庆远东百货有限公司、重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司等产品责任纠纷案
[核心术语]
不符合食品安全标准;实际损害后果;惩罚性赔偿
[争议焦点]
1.生产者、销售者明知食品不符合食品安全标准依然进行生产、销售,在未造成实际损害后果的情况下,消费者能否请求惩罚性赔偿?
[案例要旨]
《侵权责任法》第四十七条规定,“明知产品存在缺陷仍然生产、销售,造成他人死亡或者健康严重损害的,被侵权人有权请求相应的惩罚性赔偿。”《食品安全法》第九十六条第二款的规定,“生产不符合食品安全标准的食品或者销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品,消费者除要求赔偿损失外,还可以向生产者或者销售者要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金。”《食品安全法》并未限定消费者请求惩罚性赔偿必须以造成实际损害为条件,与《侵权责任法》的规定存在冲突。由于《食品安全法》属于特殊法,依据“特殊法优于一般法”的原则,对食品安全问题应适用《食品安全法》。因此,生产者、销售者明知食品不符合食品安全标准依然进行生产、销售,在未造成实际损害后果的情况下,消费者有权请求惩罚性赔偿。
No. 3 of Trial of Five Typical Cases on Food and Pharmaceutical Product Dispute Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Pi Minmin v. Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd., Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd., and et al. (Product liability dispute) 最高人民法院公布五起审理食品药品纠纷典型案例之三:皮旻旻诉重庆远东百货有限公司、重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司等产品责任纠纷案
1. Basic Facts (一)基本案情
On May 5, 2012, Pi Minmin purchased ten boxes of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup” produced by Chongqing Wuling Mushrooms Greenking Food Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Mushrooms Company”) at Chongqing Far Eastern Department Stores Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Far Eastern Company”) at the price of 448 yuan per box and paid a total of 4,480 yuan. There were a number of pre-packed food in each box of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup,” which included matsutake, boletus edulis, chanterelle, mushroom slices, swollen-stalked catathelasma, agrocybe cylindracea, blue bar fungus, stropharia, and Eastern Magic Soup package. Such content as storage methods, recipe, edible methods, net weight, product executive standards, production license, production date, warranty period, as well as address and telephone of the manufacturer were indicated on the external package of each box of “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup”; however, no raw ingredients were indicated on the package of “Eastern Magic Soup” Package. Mushrooms Company once took Q/LW7-2007 as its enterprise production standards. After the expiration of the standards, it failed to extend them in a timely manner due to various reasons and it still continued to use Q/LW7-2007 as its enterprise production standards and indicated them on the package of its products. In September 2012, it submitted a statement on the expiration of its enterprise production standards to the Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau of Shizhu Tujia Autonomous County of Chongqing Municipality; and in October 2012, it issued and used the product standards of Q/LW0005S-2012 upon recordation with the Chongqing Municipal Health Bureau. Pi Minmin maintained that the food he purchased was substandard and therefore he brought a lawsuit in the People's Court of Jiangbei District, Chongqing Municipality, and requested the court to order that Far Eastern Company should refund 4,480 yuan, the money he has paid, and Mushrooms Company should assume five times of compensation liabilities, 22,400 yuan in total. 2012年5月5日,皮旻旻在重庆远东百货有限公司(以下简称远东公司)购买了由重庆市武陵山珍王食品开发有限公司(以下简称山珍公司)生产的“武陵山珍家宴煲”10盒,每盒单价448元,共计支付价款4480元。每盒“武陵山珍家宴煲”里面有若干独立的预包装食品,分别为松茸、美味牛肝、黄牛肝、香菇片、老人头、茶树菇、青杠菌、球盖菌、东方魔汤料包等。每盒“武陵山珍家宴煲”产品的外包装上标注了储存方法、配方、食用方法、净含量、产品执行标准、生产许可证、生产日期、保质期以及生产厂家的地址、电话等内容,但东方魔汤料包上没有标示原始配料。山珍公司原以Q/LW7-2007标准作为企业的生产标准,该标准过期后由于种种原因未能及时对标准进行延续,且该企业仍继续在包装上标注Q/LW7-2007作为企业的产品生产标准,该企业于2012年9月向重庆市石柱土家族自治县质量技术监督局提交了企业标准过期的情况说明,于2012年10月向重庆市卫生局备案后发布了当前使用产品标准Q/LW0005S-2012。皮旻旻认为其所购食品不合格,遂向重庆市江北区人民法院起诉,请求判令远东公司退还货款4480元,判令山珍公司承担5倍赔偿责任共计22400元。
2. Judgment (二)裁判结果
The court of first instance delivered a judgment that: 一审法院判决:
(1) Far Eastern Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, refund Pi Minmin 4,480 yuan. (一)远东公司于判决生效之日起10日内退还皮旻旻货款4480元。
(2) Other claims of Pi Minmin were dismissed. (二)驳回皮旻旻的其他诉讼请求。
The court of second instance held that: A food producer or operator should engage in production and operation activities in accordance with the provisions of the Food Safety Law of China and the relevant laws and regulations, be responsible for the society and public, guarantee food safety, accept social supervision, and assume legal liabilities in accordance with law. The focal disputes of both parties to this case were whether the food involved had any food safety problem and the application of law and legal liabilities in this case. First, as for whether the food involved had any food safety problem and other problems, (1) Mushrooms Company that produced “Wuling Mushrooms Family Feast Soup” failed to make recordation of food safety enterprise standards as required in the notice of the health department and continued to execute the enterprise standards of Q/LW7-2007 it formulated after such standards were expired. Its acts have violated the relevant provisions on mandatory food standards; (2) the “Eastern Magic Soup Package” was a pre-packed food. No ingredient or list of ingredients and code of product standards were indicated on the label of the food prepackage, which did not conform to the relevant provisions on matters indicated on labels of pre-packed food as set forth in the Food Safety Law北京大学互联网法律中心; (3) the characters of “I Am the Best for Home Health Maintenance” on the package were characters that must be excluded from necessary indicated matters as required by the state standards for commodity packaging. Such characters were in line with features of advertising, provisions of the Advertising Law shall be applied. and the characters were absolute terms expressly prohibited by the state, which were illegal. Second, as for the application of law and legal liabilities in this case, the Food Safety Law was a special law of the Tort Law爱法律,有未来 and the handling of problems involving food safety in this case should be governed by the Food Safety Law and the relevant laws and regulations. According to the food problems in terms of food safety standards, packaging, and advertisement as found above, the food producer and operator should assume corresponding legal liabilities in accordance with laws and regulations on food safety. The Measures for the Administration of Food Safety in Chongqing Municipality was a local administrative rule of Chongqing Municipality and may apply where it did not conflict with laws and regulations. Pi Minmin required the exchange of food and the payment of damages five times of the money paid in accordance with Article 67 of the Measures for the Administration of Food Safety in Chongqing Municipality, which conformed to the spirit of Article 96 of the Food Safety Law and should be upheld. The court therefore rendered a judgment: (1) Item (1) of the judgment of first instance should be sustained; (2) Item (2) of the judgment of first instance should be reversed; and (3) Mushrooms Company should pay Appellant Pi Minmin damages of 22,400 yuan. 二审法院认为,食品生产经营者应当依照我国食品安全法及相关法律法规之规定从事生产经营活动,对社会和公众负责,保证食品安全,接受社会监督,并依法承担法律责任。本案双方当事人的讼争焦点为,涉案食品是否存在食品安全等问题,以及本案的法律适用和法律责任问题。其一,涉案食品是否存在食品安全及其他问题。1、山珍公司生产的“武陵山珍家宴煲”食品,未按卫生部门的通知要求进行食品安全企业标准备案,在其制定的Q/LW7-2007企业标准过期后继续执行该标准,违反食品强制性标准的有关规定;2、该食品中“东方魔汤料包”属预包装食品,该食品预包装的标签上没有标明成分或者配料表以及产品标准代号,不符合《食品安全法法宝》关于预包装食品标签标明事项的有关规定;3、包装上的文字“家中养生我最好”是商品包装中国家标准要求必须标注事项以外的文字,符合广告特征,应适用《广告法》之规定,该文字属于国家明令禁止的绝对化用语,不合法。其二,本案的法律适用及法律责任。《食品安全法》是《侵权责任法画风不对,如何相爱》的特别法,本案涉及食品安全问题的处理,应当适用《食品安全法》及相关法律法规之规定。根据上述查明的该食品存在食品安全标准、包装、广告方面的问题,该食品的生产经营者应当依照有关食品安全等法律法规之规定承担相应的法律责任。《重庆市食品安全管理办法》属于重庆市地方行政规章,在不与法律法规冲突的情况下可参照适用。皮旻旻要求参照该办法第67条之规定,退换食品,并支付价款5倍赔偿金符合《食品安全法》第96条之规定精神,应予支持。遂判决:(一)维持一审判决第一项;(二)撤销一审判决第二项;(三)山珍公司支付上诉人皮旻旻赔偿金22400元。
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese