晚近由於工商企業發達，國際貿易興盛，而產品之種類精密繁多，在大量生產大量銷售之情況下，危險產品、瑕疵設計、不實標示及虛偽廣告充斥於交易中，致使侵害消費者之事件層出不窮，故非課商品製造人較嚴格之責任，實無法有效地保護消費者及使用者之權益。而商品製造人責任問題及理論，在長期發展過程中，產生下列三種主要產品責任理論，即一、過失責任，二、瑕疵擔保責任，三、無過失責任。為了對弱勢之消費者提供較為週全之保護，晚近世界各國之立法趨勢均傾向於採用無過失責任主義。德國名法學家Gunther Kuhne 認為，如果被告之侵權行為及損害地點發生在不同之管轄法域時，則法院在決定商品責任案件之侵權行為發生地時，應適用最有利於原告地方之法律。因此，他主張：在選擇商品製造人責任準據法之過程中，其主要目的為保護消費者之權益，即如何使受害之消費者能得到迅速有效及合理之賠償與救濟，乃為重要考慮因素之。有關選擇商品製造人責任準據法之演進趨勢可分為下列二個階段：第一階段：將產品製造人責任先定性為侵權行為責任或契約責任後，再依照定性之行為地法作為其準據法。第二階段：在保護消費者權益之前提下，採取「最重要牽連關係原則」去尋找準據法。

“Products liability” refers to civil liability for injuries caused by defective products. It is today recognized as having important international dimensions, for there literally are no physical boundaries that a given consumer product may not cross during the course of this manufacture,marketing, distribution and ultimate use by the consumer. The consumer usually places his health and well-being in the hand of the foreign entity that may be an individual, a local company, or even a multinational corporation. If the issue is litigated, the determination of the applicable law will be a necessary part of the process. Foreign-related parties need to clarify their mutual obligations in the light of the law to govern them."Products liability" generally covers several different theories of liability － including negligence, breach of warranty so-called strict liability, and misrepresentation － which are not
mutually exclusive but can be combined in the same lawsuit. When a court is considering the meaning and extent of a connecting factor, it applies the rules laid down in forum law, as part of its rules of private international law, to resolve this issue. It is clear that the nature of our rules of private international law is such that there can be two kinds of choices involved in the determination of the relevant rule to be applied to a product liability case. As contractual obligations arise from the voluntary agreement of the parties, private international law rules extend that freedom to choice of the applicable substantive law. When we turn to another major area of the obligations of tort, the parties cannot choose the law to govern their liability in them.Such choice cannot be made because of differences in nature between contractual and tortious obligations. This study leads us to ask how far private international law permits products liability in choice of law, but is also conceals the fact that private international law rules may involve different kinds of choices.All of products liability which raises choice of law issues just given involves a degree of concern over the legality or effectiveness of future conduct. Some countries profess great interest while other countries profess little or no interest in protecting the product consumer from injury,death, damage or economic loss. The consequence is a profusion of confusion with little predictability as to whether the consumer or the foreign entity will prevail. The majority wish to avoid the difficulties which may arise and which private international law rules are designed to resolve. Choice of law rules should be designed to fulfill this prophylactic role. This is why choice of law in products liability is so important.