| 關 鍵 詞： |
因果關係；事實上因果關係；相當因果關係；損害賠償；法益侵害；責任原因事實；違法性；有責性；必要條件；充分條件 |
| 中文摘要： |
最高法院判例雖揭示「損害賠償之債，以有損害之發生及有責任原因之事實，並二者之間，有相當因果關係為成立要件」並提出「按諸一般情形，此種行為適不適於發生該項結果」之相當性檢驗方式，然而，相當因果關係於損害賠償法上之歸責功能仍曖昧不明。本文依系爭行為對造成法益侵害之充分性區分為直接與間接充分性事件，觀察相當因果關係之實然與應然面貌。就直接充分性法益侵害事件之責任成立歸責審查而言，相當性之歸責功能將完全被有責性要件中「客觀預見可能性」之審查吸收；至於間接充分性法益侵害事件中之歸責審查，實務並未真正就系爭行為對後原因事實介入後所生間接充分性法益侵害之違法性與有責性進行實質審查，就此部分係以相當性審查取代，故本文認為此相當性檢驗倘只依前開判例所示方式為之，似嫌不足，應補充以系爭行為與該間接充分性法益侵害間是否具備以「防免義務之違反」為核心之違法性與有責性作為實質審查內容，更能彰顯損害賠償法之公平正義。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Causation；Cause in Fact；Adequate Causation；Compensation of Damage；Injury；Responsible Cause；Illegality；Negligence；Essential Condition；Sufficient Condition |
| 英文摘要： |
“Causation” has been the most challenging, disputing and intriguing element in the decision of civil liability, despite the fact that Supreme Court Precedents Year 48-No.481 (1959) clearly held that an adequate causation must exist between the injury and the responsible cause to sustain a civil liability and Precedents Year 23-No.107 (1934) had already promulgated the “adequate test” holding that a cause is regarded as adequate if, based on a general experience, it is sufficient to bring out the same result. A great deal of heavily piled legal literature has accumulated in the effort to clarify the nature of “adequate causation” with only very limited success.
This article attempts to investigate the substantial function of “adequate causation” mentioned in the above Supreme Court Precedents with special reference to directly or indirectly sufficient causes. In the event in which the cause was directly sufficient to bring about the injury, if the cause once was regarded as liable to the injury after inquiring illegality and negligence, then the liability would be sustained without further applying the “adequate test” since such a test would overlap with the inquiry process of negligence and would prove to be totally useless. In the event in which the cause was indirectly sufficient to bring about the injury, the “adequate test” proposed would reveal itself to be inadequate in judging whether the cause was liable to the injury, since it bypassed the essence of illegality and negligence.
Accordingly, this article holds that the indirectly sufficient cause should be properly determined in the respect of the essence of illegality and negligence before it could be regarded as liable to the injury. The way how we determine the illegality or negligence herein differs from the way of determining the directly sufficient cause, and it would rather be based on the augment that whether the indirectly sufficient cause should burden the doer with the “duty to prevent indirect injury” or not. If the doer bears the “duty to prevent indirect injury”, yet he breaches his duty, then the illegality is sustained, and we can proceed to the negligence inquiry.
Only after careful investigation of the “adequate causation” mentioned in the Supreme Court Precedents can we unveil its riddling nature and make appropriate supplement to enrich it. Hopefully, the fairness and justice of jurisdiction can ultimately be realized in the liability decision.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、引言
一、問題意識
二、研究取徑之說明
貳、相當因果關係之實然面貌
一、判例之歸責結構
二、相當因果關係歸責功能之分析
（一）原因事實對造成侵害結果具直接充分性之事件
（二）原因事實對造成侵害結果具間接充分性之事件
（三）小結
參、相當因果關係之應然面貌
一、直接充分性法益侵害事件之相當因果關係
二、間接充分性法益侵害事件之相當因果關係
（一）間接充分性法益侵害事件之違法性審查原則
（二）間接充分性法益侵害事件之有責性審查原則
（三）與我國法以及比較法之對照
（四）小結
三、責任範圍層次之相當因果關係
肆、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|