我國和日本的職業災害救濟制度，皆採取勞動基準法上的補償責任與勞工保險條例之雙軌制的職災補償制度，以及關於職災補償無法涵蓋的部分，允許受災勞工依民法的規定向雇主請求損害賠償之併存主義。然而，如果聚焦於職業災害發生時雇主責任的台日差異，會發現縱使兩國之職災救濟制度框架十分類似，但在實際的運作上，卻存在著許多差異。本文擬先介紹台日兩國職災救濟制度的全貌，再就職災補償制度的中心、免責事由的有無，以及勞基法上的補償責任與勞保給付間的關係，分析台日雇主的職災補償責任之差異。其次就民法上的損害賠償責任，先分析其為過失責任或無過失責任，再就損害賠償的範圍比較台日雇主責任的輕重。 Both Taiwan and Japan adopt dual system of workers' compensation systems - the compensation liability under Labor Standards Law and the occupational accidents compensation under the Workers' Accident Insurance Law. For damages that is not covered by the workers' occupational accident compensation, workers are also allowed to seek compensation against the employer according to the Civil Code. However, a close comparison of employer liability on occupational accidents in Taiwan and Japan reveals many differencesin practical operation under similar legal framework. This paper first introduces the workers' compensation systems in two countries and then analyzes their differences from the following perspectives: (1) the principal law governing workers' compensation for occupational accidents, (2) exemption from responsibility, (3) the relationship between accident compensation and accident insurance benefits. This paper then compares the degree of employer's liability under Civil Code through analyzing negligence liability and the coverage of damages compensation.