法學期刊
論著名稱: 論交通事故與醫療過失競合理論-以日本法為借鑑
編著譯者: 吳振吉
出版日期: 2017.09
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 150 期 /49-111 頁
頁  數: 40 點閱次數: 374
下載點數: 160 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 吳振吉
關 鍵 詞: 交通事故醫療過失共同侵權行為共同加害行為共同危險行為
中文摘要: 童綜合醫院神經外科案係我國醫療訴訟實務具指標意義之案件,涉及被害人先因交通事故受有損害,再因醫療過失導致損害擴大。臺灣高等法院臺中分院第一次判決認為交通事故及醫療過失成立客觀行為關連之共同加害行為,令醫方須就被害人之全部損害負賠償責任,引發輿論及醫界極大回響。
實則,本案中交通事故及醫療過失不僅二行為之性質迥異,在時間上及場所上亦有明顯區隔,從而二行為並未具備客觀的行為關連性,無由成立客觀行為關連之共同加害行為,而僅係各別獨立之加害行為偶然形成競合。因之,各加害人僅須就與其行為有相當因果關係之損害部分負責。
然而,於部分交通事故與醫療過失競合之案例,無法如本案可明確區分二者所生之損害,則就重疊之損害部分,可能為交通事故或醫療事故擇一之原因力所致,亦可能二者皆係真正原因但其加害部分不明,此時則應分別適用或類推適用共同危險行為之規定,令各加害人就損害連帶負責。
英文關鍵詞: Traffic AccidentMedical MalpracticeJoint TortsJoint Tortious ActJoint Dangerous Act
英文摘要: The neurosurgery case of the Tungs' Taichung MetroHarbor Hospital is a famous medical malpractice case in Taiwan which evoked tremendous public disputes in 2012. This case involved a primary brain injury caused by a traffic accident in the claimant which was then succeeded by a neurosurgeon's medical malpractice that added on a secondary brain injury, contributing to the final damage. The appellate court regarded the driver of the traffic accident and the neurosurgeon as joint tortfeasors, and held that the neurosurgeon should be responsible for the whole damage suffered by the claimant, a judgement that has attracted harsh criticism.
In this study, it is argued that the holdings of the appellate court are inappropriate in the sense that in this case, the traffic accident and the medical malpractice were essentially different acts and the two events were separated by a significant time gap. Accordingly, the primary brain injury (~40% in this case) caused by the traffic accident could not be attributed to the neurosurgeon, and the driver alone should be responsible for the primary damage. On the other hand, as long as there was no recklessness or gross negligence in the treatment which made the secondary injury (~60% in this case) unforeseeable to the driver, the driver should be in joint and several liability with the neurosurgeon for the secondary damage.
By contrast, in situations where the primary injury caused by the traffic accident is difficult to differentiate from the secondary injury caused by medical malpractice, it could be inferred that the damage was attributable to either tortfeasor or both tortfeasors simultaneously with uncertain proportions of contribution between them, and the rule of "the joint dangerous acts" should be applied to hold both tortfeasors jointly liable for the damage.
目  次: 壹、序說
貳、童綜合醫院神經外科傷害事故案
一、案例事實
二、判決情形
(一)臺灣高等法院臺中分院九十九年度醫上字第十一號民事判決(高院第一次判決)
(二)最高法院一○三年度臺上字第七○六號民事判決
(三)臺灣高等法院臺中分院一○三年度醫上更(一)字第一號民事判決(高院更一審判決)
三、法律爭議
參、日本民法之共同侵權行為及「交通事故與醫療過失競合」理論
一、日本民法之共同侵權行為
(一)共同侵權行為之類型
(二)成立要件
(三)法律效果
二、日本法上「交通事故與醫療過失競合」理論
(一)共同侵權連帶責任說
(二)共同侵權限定責任說
(三)獨立侵權行為競合說
(四)區分責任類型說
三、小結
肆、我國民法之共同侵權行為及「交通事故與醫療過失競合」理論
一、我國民法之共同侵權行為
(一)共同侵權行為之類型
(二)成立要件
(三)法律效果
二、我國法上「交通事故與醫療過失競合」之學理分析
(一)學說見解
(二)本文見解
伍、對「童綜合醫院」案例之評析
一、交通事故與醫療過失不構成共同加害行為
二、交通事故與醫療過失各加害人間之責任分擔
(一)損害可明確區分之案例
(二)損害不可明確區分之案例
(三)發生死亡結果之案例
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列