Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 93954/124402 (76%)
Visitors : 29050168
Online Users : 336
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||揭開民事損害賠償法 相當因果關係之神秘面紗 ——從最高法院判例談起|
Causation;Cause in Fact;Adequate Causation;Compensation of Damage;Injury;Responsible Cause;Illegality;Negligence;Essential Condition;Sufficient Condition
|Issue Date: ||2016-06-17 11:11:35 (UTC+8)|
“Causation” has been the most challenging, disputing and intriguing element in the decision of civil liability, despite the fact that Supreme Court Precedents Year 48-No.481 (1959) clearly held that an adequate causation must exist between the injury and the responsible cause to sustain a civil liability and Precedents Year 23-No.107 (1934) had already promulgated the “adequate test” holding that a cause is regarded as adequate if, based on a general experience, it is sufficient to bring out the same result. A great deal of heavily piled legal literature has accumulated in the effort to clarify the nature of “adequate causation” with only very limited success. This article attempts to investigate the substantial function of “adequate causation” mentioned in the above Supreme Court Precedents with special reference to directly or indirectly sufficient causes. In the event in which the cause was directly sufficient to bring about the injury, if the cause once was regarded as liable to the injury after inquiring illegality and negligence, then the liability would be sustained without further applying the “adequate test” since such a test would overlap with the inquiry process of negligence and would prove to be totally useless. In the event in which the cause was indirectly sufficient to bring about the injury, the “adequate test” proposed would reveal itself to be inadequate in judging whether the cause was liable to the injury, since it bypassed the essence of illegality and negligence. Accordingly, this article holds that the indirectly sufficient cause should be properly determined in the respect of the essence of illegality and negligence before it could be regarded as liable to the injury. The way how we determine the illegality or negligence herein differs from the way of determining the directly sufficient cause, and it would rather be based on the augment that whether the indirectly sufficient cause should burden the doer with the “duty to prevent indirect injury” or not. If the doer bears the “duty to prevent indirect injury”, yet he breaches his duty, then the illegality is sustained, and we can proceed to the negligence inquiry. Only after careful investigation of the “adequate causation” mentioned in the Supreme Court Precedents can we unveil its riddling nature and make appropriate supplement to enrich it. Hopefully, the fairness and justice of jurisdiction can ultimately be realized in the liability decision.
Chengchi law review
|Data Type: ||article|
|Appears in Collections:||[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.