政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/124423
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 89672/119493 (75%)
造访人次 : 23943594      在线人数 : 151
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧:
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号",以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻,建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段,可获得较完整数据
  • 进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124423


    题名: 通勤災害之認定基準-兼評臺北高等行政法院一○三年度訴字第一○五五號判決
    The Requirements for Commuting Injuries Approval: Comments on the (103) Su No. 1055 Decision Rendered by the Taipei High Administrative Court
    作者: 徐婉寧
    Hsu, Wan-Ning
    贡献者: 法學評論
    关键词: 通勤災害;業務遂行性;業務起因性;職業災害;就業關聯性;被保險人因執行職務而致傷病審查準則;職災補償;勞保條例;職業災害保險
    Commuting Injuries;Arising in the Course of Employment;Arising Out of Employment;Occupational Injuries;With Respect to the Worker's Employment;the Regulations of the Examination of Injuries and Diseases Resulting from the Performance of Duties by the Insured Persons of the Labor Insurance Program;Worker's Compensation;the Labor Insurance Act;Occupational Accident Insurance
    日期: 2017-03
    上传时间: 2019-07-24 15:59:11 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 通勤災害是否屬於職業災害,對於勞資雙方的權益有重大的影響。我國於勞工保險條例授權制定之被保險人因執行職務致傷病審查準則中,明文規定將通勤災害視為職業傷害,而予以勞工保險職業災害保險給付,然其是否屬於勞基法上之職業災害卻非無爭議。再者,現行法上對於通勤災害之定義與認定基準,實付之闕如。則通勤災害之認定基準是否和一般的職業傷害相同,應具備「業務遂行性」與「業務起因性」,即有疑義。蓋通勤災害之本質,與職業災害並不相同,後者乃係處於雇主控制下,業務所內含之危險現實化的結果。則如何去認定是否屬於勞工保險應予給付之視為職業傷害的通勤災害,實有加以探究之必要。本文擬藉著評釋臺北高等行政法院一○三年度訴字第一○五五號判決,釐清我國通勤災害之認定基準,並透過日本法之介紹,探究通勤災害應有之認定基準。
    For both the employees and employers, whether or not commuting injuries are compensable is an important issue. According to the Regulations of the Examination of Injuries and Diseases Resulting from the Performance of Duties by the Insured Persons of the Labor Insurance Program-a core drawn up in accordance with the Labor Insurance Act, commuting injuries are considered as occupational injuries. Commuting injuries, therefore, are covered by labor insurance. Whether commuting injuries are occupational injuries according to the Labor Standards Act, however, is still a controversial issue. In addition, the definition of commuting injuries and the requirements of commuting injuries approval are not stipulated in explicit terms by current laws. Similarly, whether the requirements of commuting injuries approval are the same as those of occupational injuries approval- which are arising out of and in the course of employment-is also doubtful. Since the nature of commuting injuries is different from that of occupational injuries which are caused by the hazard inherent in the work under an employer's control, it is necessary to reason what the requirements of commuting injuries approval are-in order to decide what shall be considered as occupational injuries and covered by labor insurance. This research not only comments on the (103) Su No.1055 Decision Rendered by the Taipei High Administrative Court to clarify the requirements for commuting injuries approval in Taiwan, but also undertakes a comparative study on Japan to discuss the issues above.
    關聯: 法學評論, 148, 113-162
    数据类型: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/ 10.3966/102398202017030148003
    DOI: 10.3966/102398202017030148003
    显示于类别:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 大小格式浏览次数
    46.pdf2046KbAdobe PDF13检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈