法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 自最高法院 100 年度台上字第 74 號民事判決論商業照管義務暨適航性之區分(A Study on the Differences between the Duty to Care for Cargo and Seaworthiness-Relevant to the Supreme Court Civil Judgement Tai Shan Tsu No. 74 (2012))
編著譯者: 羅俊瑋
出版日期: 2015.03
刊登出處: 台灣/國立高雄大學法學論叢第 10 卷 第 2 期 /123-166 頁
頁  數: 42 點閱次數: 1845
下載點數: 168 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 羅俊瑋
關 鍵 詞: 適航性海牙規則漢堡規則鹿特丹規則貨櫃商業照管義務契約自由
中文摘要: 維持船舶適航性為海上運送人首要義務,運送人應盡其謹慎注意義務達成適航性要求,其為運送人主張責任限制或免責事由之前提。由聯合國通過之鹿特丹規則改變海牙規則、海牙威士比規則暨我國海商法於發航前或發航時盡適航性之相對性義務,而將之擴展至全程運送,並特別明訂由運送人提供裝載貨物之貨櫃,亦有適航性之要求。我國海商法第 62 條第 1 項第 3 款:「運送人或船舶所有人於發航前及發航時,對於下列事項,應為必要之注意及措置:…三、使貨艙、冷藏室及其他供載運貨物部分適合於受載、運送與保存。」為適航性有關適貨性之規定。同法第 63 條規定:「運送人對於承運貨物之裝載、卸載、搬移、堆存、保管、運送及看守,應為必要之注意及處置。」為運送人對貨物之商業照管義務規定。我國最高法院 100 年度台上字第 74 號民事判決認為海商法第 63 條規定為適航性中之適貨性規定,其對適航性認知是否有誤,本文即就此加以討論。
英文關鍵詞: seaworthinessHague RulesHamburg RulesRotterdam Rulescontainerduty of custody of the cargoFreedom of Contract
英文摘要: To make and keep the ship seaworthy is the overriding obligation for the ocean carrier. The carrier should meet the request of seaworthiness before asserting the limitation and exemption of his liability for cargo damage or loss. The carrier should pay due diligence in the whole period under Rotterdam Rules. The rules legislated by Rotterdam Rules was a substitute for the rules to pay due diligence before and at the beginning of the voyage in the Hague-Visby Rules and R.O.C. Maritime Act. To make and keep any container supplied by the carrier in or upon which the goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation also should fulfill the request of seaworthiness stated in Art. 62 (1) III of R.O.C. Maritime Act stipulated that “The carrier or ship owner shall be bound before and at the time of the commencement of the voyage, to exercise due diligence to…3. make the holds, refrigeration and cooling chambers, and all other parts of the ship used to carry the cargo, fit and safe for reception, carriage and preservation.” Section 3 is for cargo worthy. In addition, Art.63 of R.O.C. Maritime Act stipulated:”The carrier shall exercise due diligence to properly and carefully load, discharge, handle, stow, care for, carry and keep the cargo carried.” It is the duty of custody of the cargo. R.O.C Civil Judgment Tai Shan Tsu No. 74 (Sup. Ct., 2011) wrongly stated that carrier’s due diligence to make cargo worthiness is stipulated in Article 63 of R.O.C. Maritime Act and that is the precondition component for the exemption clauses in the Article 69. In fact, to make cargo worthiness is stipulated in Art. 62 (3) of R.O.C. Maritime Act. Art. 63 of Maritime Act was made for the duty of custody of the cargo. We will have more discussions on these relevant issues.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、最高法院 100 年度台上字第 74 號民事判決及其下級審民事判決
一、事實摘要
二、臺灣高雄地方法院 95 年度海商字第 22 號民事判決摘要
三、台灣高等法院高雄分院 97 年度海商上字第 3 號民事判決摘要
四、最高法院 100 年度台上字第 74 號民事判決理由摘要
參、適航性
一、海牙規則制定前
二、海牙規則制定後至漢堡規則制定前
三、漢堡規則制定後
四、我國法
五、小結
肆、適貨性
一、一般貨物
二、特殊貨物
三、不適航與未妥善堆存
伍、本案判決評釋-代結論
一、法律適用之錯誤
二、運送人就貨物之商業照管義務非主張免責事由之前提
三、本案為不具適航性,非貨物之商業照管義務之問題
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列