Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 552 Download : 487

Main Article Content

Abstract

Consumers who experience loss, injury, or death due to a damaged or defective product can claim compensation. However, the difficulty of proof is a scourge for consumers. In law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was introduced, which in English means that things speak for itself. Based on the doctrine, the law presumes a presumption of negligence which can then be applied to the reverse burden of proof. This study examines the principle of product responsibility in the Consumer Protection Act and the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in product liability. This research is normative research using a conceptual approach and a statute approach. This study found that the principle of product liability in the Consumer Protection Act contains two principles: first, the presumption of negligence, and second, the presumption of liability principle with the burden of proof reversed. In line with the consumer interest-oriented doctrine, res ipsa loquitur also contains the presumption of negligence followed by the presumption of liability principle. The application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in product liability is found in 2 things: first as a principle and second as a means of evidence in civil procedural law which can be enforced through evidence of a presumption concluded by a judge.

Keywords

civil consumer protection product liability

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Putri, W. V., & Muhammad, D. W. (2023). RES IPSA LOQUITUR: APPLICATION IN PRODUCT LIABILITY. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 8(1), 144-157. Retrieved from https://jurnal.fh.unpad.ac.id/index.php/jbmh/article/view/1255
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Book
  2. Dewata, Mukti Fajar Nur, dan Achmad Yulianto, Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta: 2007.
  3. Fuady, Munir, Sumpah Hippocrates (Aspek Hukum Malpraktek Dokter), PT Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung: 2005.
  4. Guwandi, J, Hukum Medik (Medical Law), Balai Penerbit Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta: 2007.
  5. ———, Tindakan Medik Dan Tanggungjawab Produk Medik, Balai Penerbit Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta: 1993.
  6. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud, Penelitian Hukum Edisi Revisi, Kencana, Jakarta: 2005.
  7. Samsul, Inosentius, Perlindungan Konsumen Kemungkinan Penerapan Tanggung Jawab Mutlak, Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta: 2004.
  8. Journal
  9. Adhitya, Gede, Ariawan Ni Made, dan Ari Yuliartini Griadhi, “Tanggung Gugat Product Liability Dalam Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Di Indonesia”, Kertha Semay,a Vol.01, No. 06, 2013.
  10. Agus, Azwir, “Embodiment Principles of Clearing Justice in Consumer Arbitration”, Hasanuddin Law Review ,Vol. 4, No. 3, 2018.
  11. Aristya, Sandra Dini Febri, “Pembuktian Perdata Dalam Kasus Malpraktik Di Yogyakarta”, Mimbar Hukum, 2011.
  12. Fadhly, Fabian, “Ganti Rugi Sebagai Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Konsumen Akibat Produk Cacat”, Arena Hukum, Vol. 6, No.2, 2013.
  13. Holijah, “Pengintegrasian Urgensi Dan Eksistensi Tanggung Jawab Mutlak Produk Barang Cacat Tersembunyi Pelaku Usaha Dalam Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen Di Era Globalisasi”, Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2014.
  14. Hunter, Jr. Richard J., Henry J. Amoroso, and John H. Shannon, “A Managerial Guide to Products Liability: A Primer on the Law in the United States”, International Journal of Learning and Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2012.
  15. Hylton, Keith N, “The Law and Economics of Products Liability”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 5, 2013.
  16. Kovac, Mitja, Salvini Datta, and Rok Spruk, “Pharmaceutical Product Liability, Litigation Regimes, and the Propensity to Patent: An Empirical Firm-Level Investigation”, SAGE Open, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021.
  17. Lachmann, P. J, “The Penumbra of Thalidomide, the Litigation Culture and the Licensing of Pharmaceuticals”, Qjm, Vol. 105, No. 12, 2012.
  18. Lanawaang, Janeman Jehezkiel, “Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine In Proofing Process Of Environmental Dispute”, Hang Tuah Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2020.
  19. Masinambow, Erich, “Kedudukan Doktrin Res Ipsa Loquitur Dalam Hukum Pembuktian Perdata Dalam Kasus Malpraktik”, Lex Et Societatis, Vol. 4, No. 5, 2016.
  20. Momuat, Octavianus, “Alat Bukti Tulisan Dalam Pemeriksaan Perkara Perdata Di Pengadilan”, Lex Privatum, Vol. II, No. 8, 2014.
  21. Nur, Yudha Hadian, dan Dwi Wahyuniarti Prabowo, “Penerapan Prinsip Tanggung Jawab Mutlak (Strict Liability) Dalam Rangka Perlindungan Konsumen”, Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2011.
  22. Oktaviani, Windi Eka, “Tanggung Jawab Pelaku Usaha Terhadap Kerugian Konsumen Akibat Produk Cacat”, Reformasi Hukum, Vol. XIX, No. 2, 2016.
  23. Soedjono, Soemardjono Brodjo, “Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Dalam Transaksi Konsumen Di Dunia Maya Tentang Tanggungjawab Produk”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Vol. 44, No. 8, 2011.
  24. Sudiro, Ahmad, “Asuransi Tanggung Jawab Produk Dan Perlindungan Terhadap Konsumen”, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014.
  25. Trisnadi, Setyo, “Perlindungan Hukum Profesi Dokter Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Medis”, Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2017.
  26. Yuanitasari, Deviana, “Re-Evaluasi Penerapan Doktrin Caveat Venditor Dalam Tanggung Jawab Pelaku Usaha Terhadap Konsumen”, Arena Hukum, 2017.
  27. Legal Document
  28. Court Decision Number 281/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Bdg
  29. Court Decision Number 771/Pdt.G/2022/PN Jkt.Pst
  30. Herzien Inlandsch Reglement
  31. Indonesian Civil Code
  32. Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection
  33. Other Document
  34. Amirullah, “Gugatan Class Action Keluarga Korban Gagal Ginjal Akut”, 2022, .
  35. Kerjasama dan Humas, “Tindakan Tegas BPOM Dan Bareskrim Polri Terhadap Industri Farmasi Produsen Sirup Obat Yang Tidak Memenuhi Standar Dan/Atau Persyaratan Keamanan, Khasiat, Dan Mutu”, 2022, .
  36. Mahkamah Agung RI, Putusan Pengadilan 281/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Bdg (n.d.).
  37. Rokom Redaksi Sehat, “Tidak Ada Kasus Baru Gangguan Ginjal Akut”, 2022, .
  38. Sari, Norma, “Consumer Protection of Drug in Indonesian Law: Examining The Paternalism Theory”, IConProCS, 317, 2019.
  39. Suryarandika, Rizky, “Class Action Kasus Gagal Ginjal, Hakim Tolak Eksepsi Kemenkes, BPOM, Dan PT Afifarma”, 2023, .
  40. Susila, Muh. Endriyo, “Penerapan Asas Res Ipsa Loquitur Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Malpraktik Medik Di Indonesia”, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, 2007.
  41. The New York Times, “CVS, Walgreen and Walmart Must Pay $650.5 Million in Ohio Opioid Case”, 2022, .
  42. UNCTAD, "Manual on Consumer Protection. United Nations", 2018.