法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
論不適用勞基法工時規制之住院醫師的過勞認定與民事損害賠償之請求權基礎-以最高法院 106 年度台上字第 15 號民事判決為素材(Workers’ Compensation for Those Who Are Not Subject to the Restrictions of Working Hours Imposed by Labor Standards Act and the Calculation of the Working Hours: Comments on the (106) Tai-Shang No.15 Decision Rendered by the Supreme Court)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 徐婉寧
出版日期: 2019.01
刊登出處: 台灣/東吳法律學報第 30 卷 第 3 期/99-132 頁
頁  數: 34 點閱次數: 1510
下載點數: 136 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 徐婉寧
關 鍵 詞: 勞基法過勞死民法第 483 條之 1法定工時住院醫師職業災害民事損害賠償
中文摘要: 於過勞職災的事件中,如何認定勞工之腦血管或心臟血管疾病係因執行職務過勞所引起,關鍵即在於判斷其是否有「超時工作」,即過勞的情形。然不適用勞基法之勞工,因其不受勞基法上法定工時之限制,因此其是否超時工作,往往成為重要的爭點。本論文以住院醫師為例,探討此時是否得與其他勞工依相同之基準,為過勞與否之認定。此外,無論是否適用勞基法,於當事人間具有僱傭關係時,僱用人對於受僱人,應負民法第 483 條之 1 的保護照顧義務。因此,本文認為,即使住院醫師並無勞基法之適用,醫院仍應針對會損及受僱醫師身心健康之過勞,為必要之預防。
最高法院 106 年度台上字第 15 號民事判決為住院醫師過勞職災救濟最初的最高法院判決,具有指標性意義。然其認為不應以勞基法上工時之規定檢視住院醫師合理的工時時數之見解,是否適切,有加以評釋之必要。
英文關鍵詞: Labor Standards ActKaroshiCivil Code §483-1Working hoursResident PhysicianOccupational AccidentsCivil Liability for Damages
英文摘要: Due to the regulations of working hour set by the Labor Standards Act do not apply to doctors, it is controversial to how to decide if the employed doctors worked overtime in cases of Occupational Accidents caused by overwork. However, regardless of whether the Labor Standards Act applies, under Civil Code§483-1, employers have the duty of care for safety and health to their employees based on the employment contracts. Therefore, even though the Labor Standards Act does not apply, the hospitals shall nonetheless take necessary means to prevent the doctors from suffering physical and mental harm caused by overwork.
The (106) Tai-Shang No.15 Decision Rendered by the Supreme Court is the leading case on this matter, for it is the first decision regarding the remedy for resident physicians’ occupational accidents delivered by the Supreme Court. However, it misunderstood the meaning of the minimum standards provided by the Labor Standards Act and ignored the content of the duty of care for safety and health, for it stated that the determination of employed doctors’ working hours shall consider other factors instead of the hours set by the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the comments on this decision are necessary.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、最高法院 106 年度台上字第 15 號民事判決之介紹與評析
  一、事實
  二、判決要旨
  (一)醫師超時工作之認定
  (二)規章與保護他人之法律
  (三)自身健康管理之責與與有過失
  (四)看護費用之薪額
  三、本判決之意義與評析
參、過勞職災之認定基準與工時認定
  一、過勞職災之認定基準
  (一)日本法上過勞死之定義與認定基準
  (二)我國「過勞認定參考指引」中工作負荷過重之認定基準
  二、不適用勞基法工時規制之工作者之過勞職災認定-以住院醫師為例
  (一)住院醫師之工作性質與工時認定
  (二)日本法上過勞之相關判決對於醫師工時之認定
肆、過勞職災民事損害賠償之請求權基礎
  一、民法第 483 條之 1 保護照顧義務之內容與債務不履行
  二、保護他人之法律與侵權行為
伍、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
徐婉寧,論不適用勞基法工時規制之住院醫師的過勞認定與民事損害賠償之請求權基礎-以最高法院 106 年度台上字第 15 號民事判決為素材,東吳法律學報,第 30 卷 第 3 期,99-132 頁,2019年01月。
返回功能列