法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 歐陸法嚴格責任立法與我國民法第 191 條之 3 之檢討(The Strict Liability under European Continental Law and Comments on Article 191-3 of the Taiwanese Civil Code)
編著譯者: 陳聰富
出版日期: 2011.06
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 40 卷 第 2 期 /569-628 頁
頁  數: 45 點閱次數: 1217
下載點數: 180 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳聰富
關 鍵 詞: 嚴格責任危險責任推定過失責任歐洲侵權行為法義大利民法物之管領人責任事業經營者責任
中文摘要: 關於嚴格責任之立法,各國採取之方式不同。德國法採取之例外立法方式,較為嚴格,嚴格責任不易成立。法國法廣泛解釋其民法第 1384 條規定之物的管領人責任,使嚴格責任極度擴大,而侵蝕過失責任原則。義大利民法第 2050 條之解釋適用,處於德國法與法國法之間,學說上稱之為「準嚴格責任」。我國民法第 191 條之 3 之規定,採用義大利民法之立法例,如何適度劃定其適用範圍,經常發生疑義。
本文討論嚴格責任之立論基礎與外國立法模式,整理我國法院關於本條規定之判決,發現本條之解釋適用,具有若干特色:關於本條之責任性質,我國法院雖認為本條係屬危險責任之規定,但基於本條但書之規定,多認為本條係屬「過失推定與因果關係推定之危險責任」。是以,本條之責任基礎,同時包含傳統之危險責任,與違反客觀注意義務之過失責任。
關於本條之責任主體,以事業經營者所從事之工作或活動,具有特別危險性者為限,至於其為自然人或法人,是否為事業經營者,並非重要。
關於本條之責任內容,以危險工作或活動為限。是否為危險之工作或活動,應考量下列事由:1. 被告因危險事業而獲取利益;2. 被告處於防免損害發生之優勢地位;3. 要求原告負舉證責任,對弱勢被害人不公平;4. 系爭活動對人身足生巨大損害;5. 防制危險實現之成本不大,且可以減少高額損害;6. 需一般人視為日常生活之危險來源;7. 限於特別危險、異常危險、高度危險或不合理危險;8. 須為製造危險、控制危險、分散危險,並有獲利可能性之主體;9. 需非民法另有規定。
我國法院在適用本條規定時,經常探究被告是否善盡注意義務,是否未盡安全照顧義務,有無機件故障或駕駛不當等。換言之,本條規定之責任性質終究為推定過失責任,其責任基礎為被告違反客觀上之注意義務。果爾,則本條規定將與德國法上之「交易安全義務」一般,實質上擴大過失責任之適用,而非擴大無過失責任之範圍,而與嚴格責任之區別縮小。
英文關鍵詞: strict liabilitypresumption of negligenceextraordinary dangerous activitiesEuropean tort lawItalian civil codethe custodian liability on thingsenterprise manager's liability
英文摘要: This article is both to explore the legislative model of strict liability under European law and to analyze and clarify the key factors of Article 191-3 of Taiwan Civil Code under case studies. It examines over 90 court cases relating to Article 191-3 of Taiwan Civil Code and find out some significant facts of these cases.
In terms of the exploration of European law, the article discusses German, French, and Italian laws, as well as Principles of European Tort Law. With respect to the findings of the case studies concerning Article 191-3, first, the liability of this article is based on fault, but not on strict liability. This article is a presumption of negligence and causation, which scope of application is wider than that of strict liability.
Second, the defendant that may be imposed the liability under this article includes anyone who undertakes risky jobs or activities, disregard of whether it is a natural person or a legal person. The critical element of imposing the liability under this article is whether a job or an activity is the one with extraordinary risk.
In order to make a decision as to the extraordinary dangerous activities, the court takes into account the following factors: (1) the defendant gains benefits from the risky enterprises; (2) the defendant is superior to the victim as to taking the precautions of preventing the loss; (3) it is unfair to impose the victim the burden of proving the defendant’s fault; (4) the risky activity incurs a great personal injury on the victim, (5) the cost of preventing the losses incurred by the activity is small, compared to the large amount of losses incurred by that activity; (6) the activity shall be viewed as a risky resource under ordinary life; (7) the risk shall be special, extraordinary, high, and unreasonable risk; (8) the defendant produces the risk and is able to control the risk and distribute the loss.
目  次: 壹、序言
貳、嚴格責任之立論基礎與立法模式
一、嚴格責任之立論基礎
二、歐陸法之立法模式
參、我國民法規定之解釋適用:危險工作或活動
一、經營一定事業之人,其工作或活動具有危險性
二、從事其他工作或活動之人,其工作或活動具有危險性
肆、我國案例綜合分析
一、責任性質
二、責任主體
三、責任內容:危險活動或工作
四、侵害之客體
五、責任效果
伍、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列