工業(yè)設計外文翻譯 外文翻譯 外文文獻 英文文獻 中英對照產品責任制為設計帶來的啟示

1、附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文 產品責任制為設計帶來的啟示產品使用的舒適性不是根據(jù)設計者、制造商或者零售商自身的需求作為設計標準的，而是根據(jù)使用者的需要進行設計的。juran等人就將以下內容作為主要舒適性能的判斷參數(shù) 產品設計質量 產品的適用性 特定性能 適用領域的服務性設計質量是在指在一項設計中所針對的三個分別獨立的步驟：(1)滿足使用舒適性的構成要素；(2)產品或服務的設計觀念的選擇，需要滿足使用者對必要功能的需要；(3) 如果可以嚴格執(zhí)行將已確定的產品設計觀念融入到一系列具體的設計規(guī)范中這一理念，那么就會滿足使用者的需求。juran將四個和使用舒適性相關的使用參數(shù)以及它們彼此的關系進行了歸納總

2、結，正如表一所示。而所設計產品的好壞會受到市場調查效果的影響。產品的好壞的標準可能是很模糊的，而對于設計師或者是一個設計團隊而言就有必要將不完整的市場信息列出一個設計理念框架進行研究。市場上對生產設施的可用性和它們的承載能力的了解是必不可少的，因為對這一過程的了解和生產息息相關。但工人們都有這種必要的技能嗎？什么樣的材料可用而它們的成本是多少？是否是人們依據(jù)預期的售價對成本估計過高？許多工程材料的可靠性和可維護性的基本性能還沒確定，因此備件的應急使用能力對許多產品可能是至關重要的。而產品適用領域的服務性也同樣具有重要意義。嚴格的產品責任的落實這些因素影響了使用的舒適性而且應該在設計師的設計中得

3、到體現(xiàn)，可是設計師們在他們的設計工作中有多少成功的滿足了這一要求呢？在過去的20年里消費者運動的大規(guī)模增長反映了消費者對產品以及服務的不滿。更準確的說消費者的不滿在安全方面，安全保障的缺失已經(jīng)引起了法院和立法機關的重視，特別是在美國。在1963年，加州最高法院裁定，“當制造商生產劣質產品并將其投放到市場上時買賣，之前又沒有用探傷儀檢測，結果證明這導致了人身傷害，那么他就已經(jīng)嚴重侵犯了他人的權益”。加州政府的決策被許多州效仿結果導致了20世紀70年代美國的產品責任危機，盡管那時有立法，但是據(jù)估計在1973年仍然有超過600000人發(fā)生和產品質量相關的事故。由于這個問題波及的巨大范圍帶來的影響，同

4、年美國消費者產品安全委員會成立，該委員會的只要責任是減少由消費品所引起的意外傷害， 并設立了強制性的安全標準，如果有必要的話，還要禁止劣質產品買賣并召回有問題的產品。在歐洲，法庭的判決會使很多受傷的消費者的身心壓力得到緩解，可是他們不會介紹關于人身侵犯方面應該依據(jù)產品安全保障法方面的知識，因為這是加利福尼亞最高法院的職責。例如反應停災害事件，它將問題集中在法律修改有問題的產品方面以幫助那些因為使用劣質產品而受傷的人， 如果他們已經(jīng)親自購買了這些產品，依據(jù)現(xiàn)有具體的法律法規(guī)很容易使消費者得到補償，但如果受害者不是直接的購買者，補救是很難的，而如果他是，則他的權益是可以得到保障的。在歐洲也發(fā)生了和

5、美國一樣的事故。beuc是一所專門為消費者服務的組織，它在1985年針對消費者的安全問題發(fā)表了一篇報告，報告里引用了eec組織的調查結果，平均每年有30000人死亡，而在1984這一年就有4000000人因為類似的事故受傷。在20世紀70年代英國和歐洲各機構審議認為嚴格的產品責任制是侵權行為。在1977年歐洲理事會舉辦了關于產品安全責任公約的簽字儀式。公約規(guī)定生產者要賠償因為它所生產的產品缺陷引起的傷亡事件。由于產品責任落實的草案還處于討論階段，因此大多數(shù)成員國表示不愿意接受這一條約，這一草案已經(jīng)在1976年就被eec委員會談論過,在1979年修正，而在1985年才最后被各成員國承認接受。但與

6、這個條約不同，依照現(xiàn)有規(guī)章制度，這個立案需要在1988年7月30日前通過立法審核。從設計師的角度來看，客觀的講該法令中關鍵條款是第1和第6條以及（b），（d），（e）和（f號中的第7條）。第1條規(guī)定：生產者應當承擔由于自己的產品缺陷所造成的損害。第6條規(guī)定如下：(1)產品不能提供安全保障時它就是有缺陷的，而使用者有權利將以下因素考慮在內：(a）產品說明書；(b) 商品可以根據(jù)正常思維習慣判斷起適用方式；(c)產品的保質期；(2)對于現(xiàn)有產品不得因為其改良產品投入市場而被認為存在缺陷；第7條中規(guī)定了對于制造商的限制，而下面這些則和設計問題有關，內容如下：(b)產品投入生產或者某種缺陷后來出現(xiàn)時，

7、這種導致傷害的產品缺陷就應該被改良處理；(d)因為產品不符合由公眾當局提議的強制性的規(guī)章制度時，這種設計應該被禁止再次出現(xiàn)；(e)當時的科學技術知識還不足以發(fā)現(xiàn)現(xiàn)存的產品缺陷；(f)對一個配件的制造商而言，產品缺陷要歸咎于產品的設計問題，而在整個產品的設計過程中配件的安裝要依據(jù)產品生產商國提供的說明資料；根據(jù)第8章的規(guī)定，在由于在產品缺陷和使用方疏忽的共同情況下，受害方是要負責的，而生產商的責任是“減少和杜絕”的這類情況的發(fā)生。 該指令第19條規(guī)定成員國要在1988年7月底前將“符合本指令的法律，法規(guī)和行政規(guī)定”賦予法律效力。針對安全性能的設計在本單元中對安全的強調使得產品的安全成為了設計師在

8、設計中需要考慮的必要元素。毫無疑問，很多設計師一直都在把安全作為產品設計中的必要部分，可是很多與產品質量有關的事故和人身傷害的事實表明一些設計師還沒有將安全性能擺在一個重要的位置。在一本由南美保險公司印制的宣傳冊上記載，設計缺陷和生產缺陷是經(jīng)常引起責任糾紛的原因。可小冊子中指出，有21%的事件是由于無效的警告提示造成的，因此設計師一定要在考慮使用舒適性時，注意所設計產品的質量問題和方便后續(xù)加工，產品本身是不能有效的對使用者的安全進行提示的，因此，警告會對人身造成傷害的操作的提示是非常有必要的。在檢查產品時，法律有必要設定一個具體標。在評估過程中，生產商需要考慮產品的說明書規(guī)范，在產品使用時，使

9、用者可以根據(jù)預判對產品的使用有所了解，當不符合這種要求時，其缺陷就是確定的，這就意味著該“產品”的相關內容就必須修改，其中包括：1.產品本身；2.標簽；3.包裝； 4.容器； 5.安裝/使用說明； 6.保修文件；7.售樓書；8.備件；9.廣告材料； 10.目錄。如果生產商希望利用保護法中的第7條（b），將需要證據(jù)證明該產品在進入市場時其自身缺陷是不存在的。保護法（四）要求設計人員必須熟悉由有關當局簽發(fā)的強制性的相關條例和相關公共標準。保護法（五）要求設計師將科學和技術方面的最新動態(tài)與相關產品相結合已達到改進的目的。保護法還要求產品設計師們可以作為產品的一部分做好本職工作，所設計的產品是可以使用

10、或者已經(jīng)是改進了由供應商提供的先前產品已有的缺陷。美國的市場安全報告中指出，“任何產品的發(fā)展和設計活動都包括準備階段和相持階段。這也是最重要的，因為一旦產品性能規(guī)格已選定，并一直延續(xù)于設計研究中，那么它在很大程度上將決定產品的發(fā)展是什么樣的過程，而且考慮產品原材料和材料的質量品質控制都是必要的。設計的缺陷不同于生產缺陷，它會影響所有此類產品的生產和應用，因此設計上的瑕疵也應該對產品的可靠性負責。附件2：外文原文design implications of productliabilitybyj.g. rochefitness for use is judged not by the desig

11、ner, manufacturer or retailer but by theuser. juran et al. 1 identify the following as the major parameters of fitness for use: quality of design, quality of conformance, the abilities, field service.quality of design can be regarded as a composite of three separate steps ina common progression of a

12、ctivities:(1) identification of what constitutes fitness for use to the user;(2) choice of a concept of product or service to be responsive to the identifiedneeds of the user;(3) translation of the chosen product concept into a detailed set of specificationswhich, if faithfully executed, will then m

13、eet the users needs.juransl four parameters of fitness for use and their inter-relationships are shownin figure 1.as is implied in figure 1, quality of design is influenced by the quality of marketresearch. market inputs may be vague and the designer or design team may haveto frame a design concept

14、with incomplete market information. but market inputis just one of the inputs which make up the designers brief. knowledge of the production facilities available and their capabilities is essential as is knowledgeof the process involved in production. does the workforce have the necessaryskills? wha

15、t materials are available and what do they cost; what will productioncosts be? are they expected to be too high in the light of the expected selling price?for many engineering products, reliability and maintainability requirements needto be determined. the ready availability of spare parts may be cr

16、ucial for someproducts. likewise, field service may be of major importance.the arrival of strict product liabilitythese then are the factors which influence fitness for use and which shouldbe expressed or implied in the designers brief. but how successful have designersbeen in achieving fitness for

17、use in the products which they have designed? theremarkable growth of the consumer movement in the past twenty years is areflection of widepread dissatisfaction with products and services available. oneaspect of consumer dissatisfaction, safety or more correctly, the lack of safety,has received part

18、icular attention in courts and in legislatures, especially in the us.in 1963, the supreme court of california ruled that a manufacturer is strictlyliable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to beused without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect which causes

19、 injuryto a human being. this californian decision was followed by many other statesand led to the product liability crisis of the early 1970s in the us. despitethis legal background, it was estimated that in 1973 there were over six millionproduct-associated accidents in the us. the sheer size of t

20、he problem led to theestablishment of the us consumer product safety commission (cpsc) in 1973.the commissions main task is to reduce unreasonable risks of injury associatedwith consumer products. it can set mandatory safety standards, ban products andorder recalls if necessary.in europe, court deci

21、sions eased the lot of injured consumers. but the courtsdid not introduce strict product liability in tort as did the californian supreme court.however, events such as the thalidomide disaster focused attention on the needfor legal changes to assist persons injured by defective products. if the inju

22、redperson has purchased the product, existing contract laws make it comparativelyeasy to obtain redress. but if the injured person is not the purchaser, redressis very difficult, if not impossible, to secure.the accident toll in europe was, as in the us, horrendously high. in 1985, beuc,the european

23、 organisation for consumers, published a report on consumer safety.the report quoted eec commission estimates that there were 30,000 deathsper year and 40 million injuries due to domestic accidents in 19842.during the 1970s various british and european organisations considered theintroduction of str

24、ict product liability in tort. the council of europe opened theconvention on products liability to signature by the member states in 1977. theconvention made the producer liable to pay compensation for death or personalinjuries caused by a defect in his product. but few member states of the councilo

25、f europe were willing to adopt the convention as there was also a draft directiveon product liability under discussion. this draft had been issued by the eeccommission in 1976; it was amended in 1979 and was finally adopted in july 1985.unlike the convention, the directive requires member states to

26、pass legislationconforming to the directive on or before 30 july 1988.from the viewpoint of the designer, the critical articles of the directive arearticles 1 and 6 and (b), (d), (e) and (f) of article 7. article 1 states:the producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product.arti

27、cle 6 defines a defective product as follows:(1) a product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled toexpect, taking all circumstances into account, including:(a) the presentation of the product;(b) the use to which it could reasonably be expected that the product

28、would be put;(c) the time when the product was put into circulation.(2) a product shall not be considered defective for the sole reason that a better product issubsequently put into circulation.article 7 describes defences available to the producer; only those relevant to designare reproduced here:(

29、b) that, having regard to the circumstances, it is probable that the defect which caused thedamage did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation or that thisdefect came into being afterwards; or(d) that the. defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations

30、issued bythe public authorities; or(e) that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was not such as to enablethe existence of the defect to be discovered; or(f) in the case of a manufacturer of a component, that the defect is attributable to the designof the product in which the

31、component has been fitted or to the instructions given by themanufacturer of the product.according to article eight, the producers liability may be reduced or disallowedin cases where there is both a product defect and contributory negligence by theinjured party or by a person for whom the injured p

32、arty is responsible. article19 of the directive requires member states to bring into force the laws, regulationsand administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive beforethe end of july 1988.design for safetythe emphasis on safety in this directive makes product safety an essential

33、component of the designers brief. undoubtedly, many designers have alwaysregarded safety as an essential part of product design. but the evidence of somany product-related accidents and injuries indicates that some designers havenot given safety its due prominence. a booklet3 produced by insurance c

34、ompanyof north america states that design and manufacturing defects were the mostfrequently alleged cause of liability suits (39 per cent and 37 per cent). but thebooklet also notes that failure to warn defects were cited in 21 per cent of thecases. so in considering fitness for use the designer mus

35、t pay attention not merelyto the design quality but also to quality of conformance. when hazards can notbe effectively designed out of products, appropriate warnings are an obviousrequirement.in assessing defectiveness our courts will have to determine the safety to whicha person is entitled to expe

36、ct. in this assessment the court is required to takeinto account the presentation of the product, the use to which it could reasonablybe expected that the product could be put and the time when the product wasput into circulation. when defectiveness is determined in this fashion, it meansthat the definition of product must be revised to include: the actual product, labels, packaging, container, installation/use instructions, warranty documents, sales brochures, spare parts, advertising material, catalogues.if the producer wishes to avail of defence (b) in article 7, evide