Odgovornost za razvojne rizike

Abstract

Naš Zakon o obligacionim odnosima bio je prvi propis u Evropi koji je imenovao i kao zaseban institut uredio odgovornost proizvođača za štetu od stvari s nedostatkom. Rešenje koje je usvojeno ovim zakonom dosledno sprovodi teorijski koncept objektivne odgovornosti – proizvođač se ne može osloboditi odgovornosti za štetu tako što će dokazati da se nedostatak kojim je šteta prouzrokovana nije mogao otkriti u trenutku kada je stvar puštena u promet. S druge strane, Direktiva o odgovornosti za štetu od proizvoda s nedostatkom preporučuje državama članicama EU da oslobode odgovornosti onog proizvođača koji dokaže da se postojanje nedostatka nije moglo otkriti u trenutku kada je proizvod pušten u promet ni primenom naučnog i tehničkog znanja najvišeg nivoa. Da li se pravna priroda proizvođačeve odgovornosti menja ako se kao pravnorelevantno uvaži pitanje o tome šta je proizvođač mogao da zna? Koji je ratio pravila koje sugeriše evropski zakonodavac, a kojim se rizik štete od nesaznatljivih uzroka prebacuje s proizvođača na oštećenog? Postoje li uverljivi razlozi za usvajanje ovog pravila u našem pravu? Na kraju koje su moguće posledice našeg ostajanja pri rešenju koje se, u pogledu odgovornosti za štetu od nesaznatljivih nedostataka, razlikuje od onog koje je prihvaćeno u većini evropskih zemalja?.

The development risks clause (as in the Directive 85/374/EEC) excludes liability for damage caused by a defect that could not be foreseen given the technical and scientific knowledge available at the time the product was developed. This provision was defined with the intention to establish a satisfactory compromise between the need to stimulate innovation and consumers' legitimate expectations for safer products. The European Court of Justice interpreted this clause in the following way: the producer of a defective product is absolved of liability if he can establish that the objective state of technical and scientific knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered. This includes the most advanced level of accessible knowledge, without any restriction as to the industrial sector concerned. One of the crucial arguments of the debate on the development risks is that removing this provision would suppress innovation. In view of controversial disputation, the Community legislator let the Member States had the option of abolishing this provision unilaterally. At the heart of this article is the following question: are there sufficient reasons to introduce development risks defense in Serbian legislation? Would this alteration dilute the rationale of risk spreading and loss distribution that underpin strict products liability theory? Should we be reluctant to remain faithful to the concept of full strict liability considering this adherence does not oppose to the requirements of the Directive 85/374/EEC? The importance of this issue is increased by the fact that Serbian Government prompts for implementation of the development risks defense in Serbian law (as in the Draft Law on Product Liability).