English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89672/119493 (75%)
Visitors : 23942554      Online Users : 197
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/140.119/97982


    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
    Authors: 吳志正
    Wu, Chih-Cheng
    Keywords: 因果關係;事實上因果關係;相當因果關係;損害賠償;法益侵害;責任原因事實;違法性;有責性;必要條件;充分條件
    Causation;Cause in Fact;Adequate Causation;Compensation of Damage;Injury;Responsible Cause;Illegality;Negligence;Essential Condition;Sufficient Condition
    Date: 2012-02
    Issue Date: 2016-06-17 11:11:35 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 最高法院判例雖揭示「損害賠償之債,以有損害之發生及有責任原因之事實,並二者之間,有相當因果關係為成立要件」並提出「按諸一般情形,此種行為適不適於發生該項結果」之相當性檢驗方式,然而,相當因果關係於損害賠償法上之歸責功能仍曖昧不明。本文依系爭行為對造成法益侵害之充分性區分為直接與間接充分性事件,觀察相當因果關係之實然與應然面貌。就直接充分性法益侵害事件之責任成立歸責審查而言,相當性之歸責功能將完全被有責性要件中「客觀預見可能性」之審查吸收;至於間接充分性法益侵害事件中之歸責審查,實務並未真正就系爭行為對後原因事實介入後所生間接充分性法益侵害之違法性與有責性進行實質審查,就此部分係以相當性審查取代,故本文認為此相當性檢驗倘只依前開判例所示方式為之,似嫌不足,應補充以系爭行為與該間接充分性法益侵害間是否具備以「防免義務之違反」為核心之違法性與有責性作為實質審查內容,更能彰顯損害賠償法之公平正義。
    “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.
    Relation: 法學評論125,115-191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(115-191).pdf1199KbAdobe PDF177View/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