| 關 鍵 詞： |
侵權行為；特殊侵權行為；因果關係；邏輯；充要條件；連言式命題；選言式命題；歸責；損害賠償 |
| 中文摘要： |
民事法上損害賠償之債，以有損害之發生及有責任原因之事實，並二者間有因果關係為成立要件。因果關係與可歸責性二項，即構成「矯正正義」哲思下責令加害人對被害人損害賠償之理性基礎。特殊侵權行為縱然於規範要件上異於通常侵權行為，然而，論及賠償責任成立之理性基礎，二者實無二致。
本文由因果關係之邏輯命題與歸責原則切入，採損害→因果原因事實（因果關係）→責任審查之手順，逐一檢視民法上特殊侵權行為之規範結構，探討各規範中責令加害人對被害人損害賠償之理性基礎，歸納出各條文所規範之連言式、或選言式等多因子因果關係命題成立方式、各原因事實之歸責原則、以及舉證責任分配等，於各類型特殊侵權行為上之不同設計。盼本文之分析探討能有助於釐清特殊侵權行為法適用上之爭議，進而於個案上確保法規範解釋之合理性與適用之正確性，精緻地體現損害賠償法之公平正義哲思。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Tort；Special Tort；Causation；Logics；Essential Condition；Sufficient Condition；Conjunctive Condition；Disjunctive Condition；Liability |
| 英文摘要： |
The nuclear dogma “no causation means not any liability at all” stemmed from the philosophy “Corrective Justice” in civil law make it essential in every liability actions to establish the exact causation connection, nevertheless the always problematic elements of tort law, between alleged wrongdoing and the injury complained of.
Admittedly the causation inquiry is definitely the most difficult and challenging task encountered, especially in the shift from common to special forms of tort liability, such as multiple tortfeasors and liability for damages caused by others (employees, minors, and independent contractors), animals, vehicles, goods, or dangerous business or activities etc., as herein proposed in our Civil Code §§185~191-3(what we called “special torts”), which have gained and will keep harboring overwhelming importance in the rising litigations of the contemporary or near future juridical context due to the facing us changing trends of tort patterns.
This article first elucidates briefly the fundamental regulations of logics and liability in civil laws, holding that the different causational logic structure implies the distinct liability respectively, and therewith attempts to illustrate in depth the way they are manipulated systemically in our Civil Code §§185~191-3, with special emphasis on the crucial application of “sufficient condition” and “necessary condition” coordinately in building up the logically concretely structured “conjunctive condition” and “disjunctive condition”, which will definitely help to grasp the unabridged integrated causation process complicated characteristically by multiple conditions herein. Furthermore, an impeccable detailed causation inference makes understood the distinct way the shift from individual to group and special patterns of responsibility and consequently makes it feasible for us to apply the laws more accurately and settle the disputes confidently. Hopefully this attempt will help and the fairness and justice of jurisdiction can finally be realized in “special torts” litigations.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
一、問題意識之提出
二、研究取徑之說明
貳、總論－因果關係邏輯命題與歸責原則
一、因果關係邏輯命題
（一）條件命題之充要性
（二）充要條件命題之類型
（三）多因子充要條件之建構手順
二、歸責原則
（一）單因子充要條件命題之歸責審查
（二）多因子充要條件命題之歸責審查
參、各論
一、民法第 185 條—共同侵權行為人責任
（一）狹義的共同侵權行為
（二）共同危險行為
（三）造意、幫助行為
二、民法第 187 條—法定代理人責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
三、民法第 188 條—僱用人責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
四、民法第 189 條—定作人責任
（一）充要條件命題、歸責審查與損害賠償結構
（二）爭議問題
五、民法第 190 條—動物占有人責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
六、民法第 191 條－工作物所有人責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
七、民法第 191 條之 1 －商品製造人責任
八、民法第 191 條之 2 －動力車輛駕駛人責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
九、民法第 191 條之 3 －危險工作或活動責任
（一）因果關係充要條件命題
（二）充要條件命題之歸責審查
（三）損害賠償責任之結構
（四）爭議問題
肆、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|