法學期刊
論著名稱: 論私人騎樓平整通行管理義務與賠償責任(On the Management Obligation of Flat Passage and Damage Liability on the Private Arcade)
編著譯者: 王服清
出版日期: 2017.05
刊登出處: 台灣/興大法學第 21 期 /39-94 頁
頁  數: 38 點閱次數: 1331
下載點數: 152 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 王服清
關 鍵 詞: 私人騎樓公物既成道路公有公共設施平整義務
中文摘要: 私人騎樓是否為公物性質,應予討論。據此有見解認為私人騎樓係屬「私有公物」,尚待進一步論述與分析。私人騎樓在無成立公用地役關係之情形下,即非司法院釋字第四○○號解釋所謂之既成道路。私人騎樓與我國公用地役關係(既成道路)有何不同?何謂公用地役關係(既成道路)?私人騎樓是否構成財產權特別犧牲?建築法第四十三條、建築技術規則建築設計施工編第五十七條、市區道路條例第九條明文皆規定騎樓所有人負有維持與鄰接地之消極平整義務(不改建義務)。如非因騎樓所有人而造成騎樓與鄰接地之未平整,若從以上規定推論出騎樓所有人積極平整義務即產生爭議。但政府對於私人騎樓平整權力之理論基礎又何在?騎樓所有人始終不願自行平整時,是否應由政府所負擔平整費用?惟為確保行人之權益,此時政府因而平整所生相關費用則應由騎樓所有人負擔?再者,於騎樓設置或管理有欠缺,私人發生損害時,究竟產生國家賠償責任或私法損害責任?其涉及到「公有公共設施」之定義、政府平整工程設置有欠缺時應否負國家賠償責任以及不履行管理維護義務係國家賠償責任或私法損害責任?為釐清以上諸多爭議問題,值得本文探討之。
英文關鍵詞: ArcadePublic PropertyDe Facto RoadPublic FacilitiesFlat Obligation
英文摘要: Whether the private arcade is the nature of public property or not should be discussed. Accordingly, there is a opinion that the private arcade is regarded as "private public property", pending on further discussion and analysis. In no case that the private arcade is established als the public easement relationship, that is not so-called "de facto road" due to Judicial Yuan No. 400 Interpretation. What are there differences between the private arcade and public easement relationship (de facto road)? What is the public easement (de facto road)? Constitutes the private arcade the special sacrifice of property? The article 43 of the Building Act, the article 57 of Building Design and Construction Section in the Building Technology Rules, the article 9 of Urban Roads Act provide all expressly that arcade owners bear the negative flat obligation (non-rebuilt obligation) to maintain smooth way with adjacent ground.
When the arcade owners cause not these arcades with adjacent ground to not be flat, it is a controversy that above those provisions leads to the positive flat obligation. However, in which theoretical basis lies the power of the government authorities to make arcade a flat surface? When the Arcade owners have selfst been reluctant to make the arcade a flat surface, whether the government burdens these flat fees or not?
But, in order to ensure the interests of pedestrians, then the related costs through governmental made flat arcade should therefore born by the arcade owners? Furthermore, when the pedestrians have been injuried due to the deficiency of construction or manage on the arcade, it generates the State liability or private law responsibility for damage? It relates to the definition of "Public Facilities", the deficiency of construction at the times of governmental flat works generates the State liability? State liability or private damage liability is based on the non-implementation of management and maintenance obligation? In order to clarify these many controversial issues, this article is worthy of exploring.
目  次: 壹、問題提出
貳、私人騎樓與我國公用地役關係(既成道路)之比較
  一、私人騎樓是否?私有公物之爭議
  (一)公物之定義
  (二)私有公物之討論
  二、公用地役關係(既成道路)
  (一)司法院釋字第四??號解釋
  (二)騎樓與公用地役關係之比較
  三、私人騎樓是否構成特別犧牲之爭議
  (一)容認公眾通行之公法上義務
  (二)司法院釋字第五六四號解釋
  (三)以逾越人民財產權忍受界限作?標準
參、私人騎樓平整義務之爭議
  一、私人騎樓消極平整義務(不改建義務)
  (一)相關規定
  (二)行政罰
  二、政府對於私人騎樓平整權力
  三、私人不負騎樓積極平整之義務與其費用
肆、私人騎樓賠償責任之爭議
  一、私法侵權行?之損害賠償責任
  (一)不符合「公有公共設施」之定義
  (二)私人維護責任
  二、政府平整工程設置有欠缺
  三、不履行管理維護義務
伍、結論與建議
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
返回功能列