English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89672/119493 (75%)
Visitors : 23945123      Online Users : 145
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/97981


    Title: 美國法上僱用人懲罰性賠償金 責任之研究(下)
    Authors: 戴志傑
    Tai, Chih-Chieh
    Keywords: 懲罰性賠償金;填補性賠償金;嚴格責任;代負責任;雇主責任理論;本人代理人理論;代理人控制理論;共犯原則
    Punitive Damages;Compensatory Damages;Strict Liability;Vicarious Liability;Respondeat Superior Doctrine;Principal-Agent Theory;Agent-Control Theory;Complicity Rule
    Date: 2012-02
    Issue Date: 2016-06-17 11:11:20 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 美國法之僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任,傳統上係採取「雇主責任理論」之代負責任的歸責原則,以期落實僱用人之監督管理責任並藉之避免損害事件之再發生。然因僱用人代負責任制度本係為實現被害人損害完全填補之目的而設,並隸屬於填補性賠償金制度下之配套措施,而今將之適用至專為懲罰與嚇阻目的而設的懲罰性賠償金制度時,即生目的齟齬以及公平性與合理性等方面之疑慮,進而受到論者們的嚴厲批評。因此,晚近即有許多州的法院透過判決之方式而對於僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任改採「共犯原則」之自己責任的歸責原則;且已有若干州在參考侵權行為法整編二版第九○九條關於僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任之規定後,或加以全盤接納或略作修正而制定自身的該制度法令;此外,並亦有若干州的法院在個案中已對於此等法令之具體規範作出相關解釋與判決意見。從而,此等關於僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任的相關判決意見以及法令規範與解釋即獨具參考之價值。是故,鑑於我國消費者保護法第五十一條之懲罰性賠償金制度規定於立法當時未有對於僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任之歸責原則的政策問題予以討論,且又因司法實踐上迄今仍處紛擾狀態等情形與背景下,本文基於「他山之石,可以攻玉」之目的而試圖透過美國法制之發展狀況以對於僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任之相關理論的意義、沿革及其相互間之論爭予以研究,進而評析侵權行為法整編二版該條各款之具體規定以及法院對之適用之情形,並於最後提出此等問題之具體建議以期為我國現行司法實務與未來修法上之參考。
    Traditionally, the principle of vicarious liability for employer’s punitive damages of American law has been based upon the theory of the respondeat superior doctrine. The purpose is to enable the employer to monitor the management and avoid any recurrence of damages. Nevertheless, vicarious liability was passed to provide the injured party with a financially responsible entity in compensatory damages. When it applies to the imposition of punitive damages, doubts about the fairness and rationality were seriously criticized. Therefore, in recent years, many state courts have adopted a complicity rule to judge cases involving punitive damages. Several states also revised their rules regarding punitive damages in accordance with Article 909 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Besides, some courts have provided opinions and explanations of decisions in punitive damages cases, which are highly regarded as valuable references. In consideration of the rule on punitive damages stated in Article 51 of our Consumer Protection Law, the above-mentioned issues have not been discussed through legislation and the practice of this law has still been somewhat ambiguous. As “advice from others may help overcome one’s defects”, this research aims to study the theories, the course of changes and the disputes related to this subject considering the development of the American legal system to further analyze each article on punitive damages of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and how the courts apply this law. Finally, this study attempts to propose some concrete recommendations to give references for the court’s practical sentences and future law revisions.
    Relation: 法學評論,125,55-114頁
    Chengchi law review
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    125(055-114).pdf959KbAdobe PDF167View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    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 ©   - Feedback