工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯---產(chǎn)品責(zé)任制為設(shè)計(jì)帶來(lái)的啟示

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　學(xué) 院： </p><p>　　專(zhuān) 業(yè)： 工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì) 072班 </p><p>　　姓 名： </p&g

2、t;<p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)： 200700603040 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)老師： </p><p>　　外文出處：Design Implications of Product Liablity </p><p>　　By J.G

3、Roche </p><p>　　附 件： 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文。 </p><p><b>　　二零一一年三月八日</b></p><p>　　附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文</p><p>　　產(chǎn)品責(zé)任制為設(shè)計(jì)帶來(lái)的啟示</p><

4、;p>　　產(chǎn)品使用的舒適性不是根據(jù)設(shè)計(jì)者、制造商或者零售商自身的需求作為設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的，而是根據(jù)使用者的需要進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)的。</p><p>　　Juan等人就將以下內(nèi)容作為主要舒適性能的判斷參數(shù)</p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)質(zhì)量</b></p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)品的適用性</b></p>&l

5、t;p><b>　　特定性能</b></p><p><b>　　適用領(lǐng)域的服務(wù)性</b></p><p>　　設(shè)計(jì)質(zhì)量是在指在一項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)中所針對(duì)的三個(gè)分別獨(dú)立的步驟：</p><p>　　(1)滿(mǎn)足使用舒適性的構(gòu)成要素；</p><p>　　(2)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的設(shè)計(jì)觀念的選擇，需要滿(mǎn)足使用者對(duì)必

6、要功能的需要；</p><p>　　(3) 如果可以嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行將已確定的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)觀念融入到一系列具體的設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)范中這一理念，那么就會(huì)滿(mǎn)足使用者的需求。</p><p>　　Juran將四個(gè)和使用舒適性相關(guān)的使用參數(shù)以及它們彼此的關(guān)系進(jìn)行了歸納總結(jié)，正如表一所示。而所設(shè)計(jì)產(chǎn)品的好壞會(huì)受到市場(chǎng)調(diào)查效果的影響。產(chǎn)品的好壞</p><p>　　的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可能是很模糊的，而對(duì)于設(shè)計(jì)師

7、或者是一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)團(tuán)隊(duì)而言就有必要將不完整的市場(chǎng)信息列出一個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)理念框架進(jìn)行研究。市場(chǎng)上對(duì)生產(chǎn)設(shè)施的可用性和它們的承載能力的了解是必不可少的，因?yàn)閷?duì)這一過(guò)程的了解和生產(chǎn)息息相關(guān)。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(yù)期的售價(jià)對(duì)成本估計(jì)過(guò)高？許多工程材料的可靠性和可維護(hù)性的基本性能還沒(méi)確定，因此備件的應(yīng)急使用能力對(duì)許多產(chǎn)品可能是至關(guān)重要的。而產(chǎn)品適用領(lǐng)域的服務(wù)性也同樣具有重要意義。</p>

8、;<p>　　嚴(yán)格的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的落實(shí)</p><p>　　這些因素影響了使用的舒適性而且應(yīng)該在設(shè)計(jì)師的設(shè)計(jì)中得到體現(xiàn)，可是設(shè)計(jì)師們?cè)谒麄兊脑O(shè)計(jì)工作中有多少成功的滿(mǎn)足了這一要求呢？在過(guò)去的20年里消費(fèi)者運(yùn)動(dòng)的大規(guī)模增長(zhǎng)反映了消費(fèi)者對(duì)產(chǎn)品以及服務(wù)的不滿(mǎn)。更準(zhǔn)確的說(shuō)消費(fèi)者的不滿(mǎn)在安全方面，安全保障的缺失已經(jīng)引起了法院和立法機(jī)關(guān)的重視，特別是在美國(guó)。</p><p>　　在1963年，

9、加州最高法院裁定，“當(dāng)制造商生產(chǎn)劣質(zhì)產(chǎn)品并將其投放到市場(chǎng)上時(shí)買(mǎi)賣(mài)，之前又沒(méi)有用探傷儀檢測(cè)，結(jié)果證明這導(dǎo)致了人身傷害，那么他就已經(jīng)嚴(yán)重侵犯了他人的權(quán)益”。加州政府的決策被許多州效仿結(jié)果導(dǎo)致了20世紀(jì)70年代美國(guó)的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任危機(jī)，盡管那時(shí)有立法，但是據(jù)估計(jì)在1973年仍然有超過(guò)600000人發(fā)生和產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量相關(guān)的事故。由于這個(gè)問(wèn)題波及的巨大范圍帶來(lái)的影響，同年美國(guó)消費(fèi)者產(chǎn)品安全委員會(huì)成立，該委員會(huì)的只要責(zé)任是減少由消費(fèi)品所引起的意外傷害， 并設(shè)

10、立了強(qiáng)制性的安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，如果有必要的話，還要禁止劣質(zhì)產(chǎn)品買(mǎi)賣(mài)并召回有問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)品。</p><p>　　在歐洲，法庭的判決會(huì)使很多受傷的消費(fèi)者的身心壓力得到緩解，可是他們不會(huì)介紹關(guān)于人身侵犯方面應(yīng)該依據(jù)產(chǎn)品安全保障法方面的知識(shí)，因?yàn)檫@是加利福尼亞最高法院的職責(zé)。例如反應(yīng)停災(zāi)害事件，它將問(wèn)題集中在法律修改有問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)品方面以幫助那些因?yàn)槭褂昧淤|(zhì)產(chǎn)品而受傷的人， 如果他們已經(jīng)親自購(gòu)買(mǎi)了這些產(chǎn)品，依據(jù)現(xiàn)有具體的法律法規(guī)很容易

11、使消費(fèi)者得到補(bǔ)償，但如果受害者不是直接的購(gòu)買(mǎi)者，補(bǔ)救是很難的，而如果他是，則他的權(quán)益是可以得到保障的。</p><p>　　在歐洲也發(fā)生了和美國(guó)一樣的事故。BEUC是一所專(zhuān)門(mén)為消費(fèi)者服務(wù)的組織，它在1985年針對(duì)消費(fèi)者的安全問(wèn)題發(fā)表了一篇報(bào)告，報(bào)告里引用了EEC組織的調(diào)查結(jié)果，平均每年有30000人死亡，而在1984這一年就有4000000人因?yàn)轭?lèi)似的事故受傷。</p><p>　　在20

12、世紀(jì)70年代英國(guó)和歐洲各機(jī)構(gòu)審議認(rèn)為嚴(yán)格的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任制是侵權(quán)行為。在1977年歐洲理事會(huì)舉辦了關(guān)于產(chǎn)品安全責(zé)任公約的簽字儀式。公約規(guī)定生產(chǎn)者要賠償因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品缺陷引起的傷亡事件。由于產(chǎn)品責(zé)任落實(shí)的草案還處于討論階段，因此大多數(shù)成員國(guó)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(huì)談?wù)撨^(guò),在1979年修正，而在1985年才最后被各成員國(guó)承認(rèn)接受。但與這個(gè)條約不同，依照現(xiàn)有規(guī)章制度，這個(gè)立案需要在1988年7月30日前通

13、過(guò)立法審核。</p><p>　　從設(shè)計(jì)師的角度來(lái)看，客觀的講該法令中關(guān)鍵條款是第1和第6條以及（b），（d），（e）和（f號(hào)中的第7條）。</p><p>　　第1條規(guī)定：生產(chǎn)者應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)由于自己的產(chǎn)品缺陷所造成的損害。</p><p><b>　　第6條規(guī)定如下：</b></p><p>　　(1)產(chǎn)品不能提供安全保障

14、時(shí)它就是有缺陷的，而使用者有權(quán)利將以下因素考慮在內(nèi)：</p><p><b>　　(a）產(chǎn)品說(shuō)明書(shū)；</b></p><p>　　(b) 商品可以根據(jù)正常思維習(xí)慣判斷起適用方式；</p><p>　　(c)產(chǎn)品的保質(zhì)期；</p><p>　　(2)對(duì)于現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品不得因?yàn)槠涓牧籍a(chǎn)品投入市場(chǎng)而被認(rèn)為存在缺陷；</p>

15、;<p>　　第7條中規(guī)定了對(duì)于制造商的限制，而下面這些則和設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題有關(guān)，內(nèi)容如下：</p><p>　　(b)產(chǎn)品投入生產(chǎn)或者某種缺陷后來(lái)出現(xiàn)時(shí)，這種導(dǎo)致傷害的產(chǎn)品缺陷就應(yīng)該被改良處理；</p><p>　　(d)因?yàn)楫a(chǎn)品不符合由公眾當(dāng)局提議的強(qiáng)制性的規(guī)章制度時(shí)，這種設(shè)計(jì)應(yīng)該被禁止再次出現(xiàn)；</p><p>　　(e)當(dāng)時(shí)的科學(xué)技術(shù)知識(shí)還不足以發(fā)現(xiàn)現(xiàn)

16、存的產(chǎn)品缺陷；</p><p>　　(f)對(duì)一個(gè)配件的制造商而言，產(chǎn)品缺陷要?dú)w咎于產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計(jì)問(wèn)題，而在整個(gè)產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程中配件的安裝要依據(jù)產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)商國(guó)提供的說(shuō)明資料；</p><p>　　根據(jù)第8章的規(guī)定，在由于在產(chǎn)品缺陷和使用方疏忽的共同情況下，受害方是要負(fù)責(zé)的，而生產(chǎn)商的責(zé)任是“減少和杜絕”的這類(lèi)情況的發(fā)生。 該指令第19條規(guī)定成員國(guó)要在1988年7月底前將“符合本指令的法律，法規(guī)和行

17、政規(guī)定”賦予法律效力。針對(duì)安全性能的設(shè)計(jì)</p><p>　　在本單元中對(duì)安全的強(qiáng)調(diào)使得產(chǎn)品的安全成為了設(shè)計(jì)師在設(shè)計(jì)中需要考慮的必要元素。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，很多設(shè)計(jì)師一直都在把安全作為產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)中的必要部分，可是很多與產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量有關(guān)的事故和人身傷害的事實(shí)表明一些設(shè)計(jì)師還沒(méi)有將安全性能擺在一個(gè)重要的位置。在一本由南美保險(xiǎn)公司印制的宣傳冊(cè)上記載，設(shè)計(jì)缺陷和生產(chǎn)缺陷是經(jīng)常引起責(zé)任糾紛的原因?？尚?cè)子中指出，有21%的事件是由于無(wú)

18、效的警告提示造成的，因此設(shè)計(jì)師一定要在考慮使用舒適性時(shí)，注意所設(shè)計(jì)產(chǎn)品的質(zhì)量問(wèn)題和方便后續(xù)加工，產(chǎn)品本身是不能有效的對(duì)使用者的安全進(jìn)行提示的，因此，警告會(huì)對(duì)人身造成傷害的操作的提示是非常有必要的。在檢查產(chǎn)品時(shí)，法律有必要設(shè)定一個(gè)具體標(biāo)。</p><p>　　在評(píng)估過(guò)程中，生產(chǎn)商需要考慮產(chǎn)品的說(shuō)明書(shū)規(guī)范，在產(chǎn)品使用時(shí)，使用者可以根據(jù)預(yù)判對(duì)產(chǎn)品的使用有所了解，當(dāng)不符合這種要求時(shí)，其缺陷就是確定的，這就意味著該“產(chǎn)品”

19、的相關(guān)內(nèi)容就必須修改，其中包括：</p><p>　　1.產(chǎn)品本身；2.標(biāo)簽；3.包裝； 4.容器； 5.安裝/使用說(shuō)明； 6.保修文件；7.售樓書(shū)；8.備件；9.廣告材料； 10.目錄。</p><p>　　如果生產(chǎn)商希望利用保護(hù)法中的第7條（b），將需要證據(jù)證明該產(chǎn)品在進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)時(shí)其自身缺陷是不存在的。保護(hù)法（四）要求設(shè)計(jì)人員必須熟悉由有關(guān)當(dāng)局簽發(fā)的強(qiáng)制性的相關(guān)條例和相

20、關(guān)公共標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。保護(hù)法（五）要求設(shè)計(jì)師將科學(xué)和技術(shù)方面的最新動(dòng)態(tài)與相關(guān)產(chǎn)品相結(jié)合已達(dá)到改進(jìn)的目的。保護(hù)法還要求產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)師們可以作為產(chǎn)品的一部分做好本職工作，所設(shè)計(jì)的產(chǎn)品是可以使用或者已經(jīng)是改進(jìn)了由供應(yīng)商提供的先前產(chǎn)品已有的缺陷。</p><p>　　美國(guó)的市場(chǎng)安全報(bào)告中指出，“任何產(chǎn)品的發(fā)展和設(shè)計(jì)活動(dòng)都包括準(zhǔn)備階段和相持階段。這也是最重要的，因?yàn)橐坏┊a(chǎn)品性能規(guī)格已選定，并一直延續(xù)于設(shè)計(jì)研究中，那么它在很大程度上將決定

21、產(chǎn)品的發(fā)展是什么樣的過(guò)程，而且考慮產(chǎn)品原材料和材料的質(zhì)量品質(zhì)控制都是必要的。設(shè)計(jì)的缺陷不同于生產(chǎn)缺陷，它會(huì)影響所有此類(lèi)產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)和應(yīng)用，因此設(shè)計(jì)上的瑕疵也應(yīng)該對(duì)產(chǎn)品的可靠性負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p><b>　　附件2：外文原文</b></p><p>　　Design Implications of Product</p><p><b&g

22、t;　　Liability</b></p><p><b>　　by</b></p><p>　　J.G. Roche</p><p>　　Fitness for use is judged not by the designer, manufacturer or retailer but by the</p><

23、;p>　　user. Juran et al. [1] identify the following as the major parameters of fitness for use:</p><p>　　— Quality of Design,</p><p>　　— Quality of Conformance,</p><p>　　— The &qu

24、ot;abilities",</p><p>　　— Field service.</p><p>　　Quality of Design "can be regarded as a composite of three separate steps in</p><p>　　a common progression of activities:

25、</p><p>　　(1) Identification of what constitutes fitness for use to the user;</p><p>　　(2) Choice of a concept of product or service to be responsive to the identified</p><p>　　need

26、s of the user;</p><p>　　(3) Translation of the chosen product concept into a detailed set of specifications</p><p>　　which, if faithfully executed, will then meet the users' needs."<

27、/p><p>　　Juran's[l] four parameters of fitness for use and their inter-relationships are shown</p><p>　　in Figure 1.</p><p>　　As is implied in Figure 1, Quality of Design is influe

28、nced by the quality of market</p><p>　　research. Market inputs may be vague and the designer or design team may have</p><p>　　to frame a design concept with incomplete market information. But ma

29、rket input</p><p>　　is just one of the inputs which make up the designer's brief. Knowledge of the </p><p>　　production facilities available and their capabilities is essential as is knowled

30、ge</p><p>　　of the process involved in production. Does the workforce have the necessary</p><p>　　skills? What materials are available and what do they cost; What will production</p><

31、p>　　costs be? Are they expected to be too high in the light of the expected selling price?</p><p>　　For many engineering products, reliability and maintainability requirements need</p><p>　　t

32、o be determined. The ready availability of spare parts may be crucial for some</p><p>　　products. Likewise, field service may be of major importance.</p><p>　　The Arrival of Strict Product Liabi

33、lity</p><p>　　These then are the factors which influence "Fitness for Use" and which should</p><p>　　be expressed or implied in the designer's brief. But how successful have design

34、ers</p><p>　　been in achieving fitness for use in the products which they have designed? The</p><p>　　remarkable growth of the consumer movement in the past twenty years is a</p><p>

35、;　　reflection of widepread dissatisfaction with products and services available. One</p><p>　　aspect of consumer dissatisfaction, safety or more correctly, the lack of safety,</p><p>　　has recei

36、ved particular attention in courts and in legislatures, especially in the US.</p><p>　　In 1963, the Supreme Court of California ruled that "A manufacturer is strictly</p><p>　　liable in tor

37、t when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be</p><p>　　used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect which causes injury</p><p>　　to a human being". Thi

38、s Californian decision was followed by many other states</p><p>　　and led to the "Product Liability Crisis" of the early 1970s in the US. Despite</p><p>　　this legal background, it was

39、 estimated that in 1973 there were over six million</p><p>　　product-associated accidents in the US. The sheer size of the problem led to the</p><p>　　establishment of the US Consumer Product Sa

40、fety Commission (CPSC) in 1973.</p><p>　　The Commission's main task is to reduce unreasonable risks of injury associated</p><p>　　with consumer products. It can set mandatory safety standard

41、s, ban products and</p><p>　　order recalls if necessary.</p><p>　　In Europe, court decisions eased the lot of injured consumers. But the courts</p><p>　　did not introduce strict pro

42、duct liability in tort as did the Californian Supreme Court.</p><p>　　However, events such as the thalidomide disaster focused attention on the need</p><p>　　for legal changes to assist persons

43、injured by defective products. If the injured</p><p>　　person has purchased the product, existing contract laws make it comparatively</p><p>　　easy to obtain redress. But if the injured person i

44、s not the purchaser, redress</p><p>　　is very difficult, if not impossible, to secure.</p><p>　　The accident toll in Europe was, as in the US, horrendously high. In 1985, BEUC,</p><p&

45、gt;　　the European organisation for consumers, published a report on consumer safety.</p><p>　　The report quoted EEC Commission estimates that there were 30,000 deaths</p><p>　　per year and 40 mi

46、llion injuries due to domestic accidents in 1984[2].</p><p>　　During the 1970s various British and European organisations considered the</p><p>　　introduction of strict product liability in tort

47、. The Council of Europe opened the</p><p>　　Convention on Products Liability to signature by the Member States in 1977. The</p><p>　　Convention made "the producer" liable to pay compen

48、sation for death or personal</p><p>　　injuries caused by a defect in his product. But few Member States of the Council</p><p>　　of Europe were willing to adopt the Convention as there was also a

49、 Draft Directive</p><p>　　on Product Liability under discussion. This Draft had been issued by the EEC</p><p>　　Commission in 1976; it was amended in 1979 and was finally adopted in July 1985.&l

50、t;/p><p>　　Unlike the Convention, the Directive requires Member States to pass legislation</p><p>　　conforming to the Directive on or before 30 July 1988.</p><p>　　From the viewpoint o

51、f the designer, the critical articles of the Directive are</p><p>　　Articles 1 and 6 and (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Article 7. Article 1 states:</p><p>　　The producer shall be liable for damage ca

52、used by a defect in his product.</p><p>　　Article 6 defines a defective product as follows:</p><p>　　(1) A product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to&

53、lt;/p><p>　　expect, taking all circumstances into account, including:</p><p>　　(a) the presentation of the product;</p><p>　　(b) the use to which it could reasonably be expected that t

54、he product would be put;</p><p>　　(c) the time when the product was put into circulation.</p><p>　　(2) A product shall not be considered defective for the sole reason that a better product is<

55、;/p><p>　　subsequently put into circulation.</p><p>　　Article 7 describes defences available to the producer; only those relevant to design</p><p>　　are reproduced here:</p><

56、;p>　　(b) that, having regard to the circumstances, it is probable that the defect which caused the</p><p>　　damage did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation or that this</p>

57、;<p>　　defect came into being afterwards; or</p><p>　　(d) that the. defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by</p><p>　　the public authorities; or<

58、/p><p>　　(e) that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was not such as to enable</p><p>　　the existence of the defect to be discovered; or</p><p>　　(f) in the ca

59、se of a manufacturer of a component, that the defect is attributable to the design</p><p>　　of the product in which the component has been fitted or to the instructions given by the</p><p>　　man

60、ufacturer of the product.</p><p>　　According to Article eight, the producer's liability may be "reduced or disallowed"</p><p>　　in cases where there is both a product defect and co

61、ntributory negligence by the</p><p>　　injured party or by a person for whom the injured party is responsible. Article</p><p>　　19 of the Directive requires Member States to bring into force &quo

62、t;the laws, regulations</p><p>　　and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive" before</p><p>　　the end of July 1988.</p><p>　　Design for Safety</p&g

63、t;<p>　　The emphasis on safety in this Directive makes product safety an essential</p><p>　　component of the designer's brief. Undoubtedly, many designers have always</p><p>　　regarde

64、d safety as an essential part of product design. But the evidence of so</p><p>　　many product-related accidents and injuries indicates that some designers have</p><p>　　not given safety its due

65、prominence. A booklet[3] produced by Insurance Company</p><p>　　of North America states that design and manufacturing defects were the most</p><p>　　frequently alleged cause of liability suits (

66、39 per cent and 37 per cent). But the</p><p>　　booklet also notes that "failure to warn" defects were cited in 21 per cent of the</p><p>　　cases. So in considering Fitness for Use the

67、designer must pay attention not merely</p><p>　　to the design quality but also to Quality of Conformance. When hazards can not</p><p>　　be effectively designed out of products, appropriate warni

68、ngs are an obvious</p><p>　　requirement.</p><p>　　In assessing defectiveness our courts will have to determine the safety to which</p><p>　　a person is entitled to expect. In this a

69、ssessment the court is required to take</p><p>　　into account the presentation of the product, the use to which it could reasonably</p><p>　　be expected that the product could be put and the tim

70、e when the product was</p><p>　　put into circulation. When defectiveness is determined in this fashion, it means</p><p>　　that the definition of "product" must be revised to include:&l

71、t;/p><p>　　— the actual product,</p><p><b>　　— labels,</b></p><p>　　— packaging,</p><p>　　— container,</p><p>　　— installation/use instructions,&l

72、t;/p><p>　　— warranty documents,</p><p>　　— sales brochures,</p><p>　　— spare parts,</p><p>　　— advertising material,</p><p>　　— catalogues.</p><p&

73、gt;　　If the producer wishes to avail of defence (b) in Article 7, evidence will be required</p><p>　　to show that the defect did not exist at the time that the product was put into</p><p>　　circ

74、ulation. Defence (d) will require designers to be familiar with mandatory</p><p>　　regulations or standards issued by the relevant public authorities. Defence (e)</p><p>　　will require the desig

75、ner to keep abreast of scientific and technical developments</p><p>　　that are relevant to the product in question. Defence (0 will require the designer</p><p>　　of a product used as a component

76、 to be sufficiently competent to be able to show</p><p>　　that it was the design of the product in which the component was fitted or the</p><p>　　instructions given by the manufacturer of the pr

77、oduct that caused the damage.</p><p>　　The American report Safety in the Market Place notes that "for any product,</p><p>　　the development and design activities comprise the most fluid sta

78、ge in its</p><p>　　preparation for the market place. It is also one of the most important, for once</p><p>　　performance specifications have been selected and the design has been committed,</

79、p><p>　　it will dictate in large measure what processes, materials and quality control</p><p>　　procedures will be required" [4]. A design defect, unlike a production defect, affects</p>