题名

民法第188條第1項受僱人「因執行職務」之邏輯基礎

并列篇名

The Logic Rationale of "Due to Discharging Duty" as Provided in Civil Code § 188(1)

DOI

10.29722/TULR.201006.0002

作者

吳志正(Chih-Cheng Wu)

关键词

僱用人 ; 受僱人 ; 執行職務 ; 職務範圍 ; 侵權行為 ; 因果關係 ; 邏輯 ; 必要條件 ; 充分條件 ; 連言 ; 選言 ; Employer ; Employee ; Discharge of Duty ; Scope of Employment ; Torts ; Causation ; Logics ; Essential Condition ; Necessary Condition ; Conjunction ; Disjunction

期刊名称

東海大學法學研究

卷期/出版年月

32期(2010 / 06 / 01)

页次

71 - 118

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

民法第188條第1項「因執行職務」之認定係近來重要之實務問題,惟學說與實務對其認定基準難有共識。實則,處理本條項之「涵攝」問題時,應同時重視事實面邏輯推理之正確性以及法價值面評斷之妥當性。本文藉由形式邏輯歸納出受僱人之侵害行為與其執行職務行為間至少應具備下列關係之一時,方可能符合「因執行職務」要件而將執行職務納入損害發生之因果歷程中,作為課予僱用人本條項責任之前提:(1)侵害行為係執行職務自體之行為;(2)執行職務行為係侵害行為之充分條件或必要條件者;(3)侵害行為由職務上之行為與無關職務行為所連言、或選言者。對照以最高法院42年台上字第1224號民事判例所揭櫫之「執行職務自體之行為」、「執行該職務所必要之行為」以及「客觀上足認為與其執行職務有關之行為」三判斷基準,恰分別符合此揭命題之邏輯基礎;至於「職務上予以機會之行為」、「與執行職務之時間或處所有密切關係之行為」、「行為外觀」或「個人之犯罪行為」等基準,則欠缺邏輯性。

英文摘要

The employer is jointly liable to compensate for any damage which the employee, due to the discharge of his appointed duty, unlawfully causes to third parties as provided in Civil Code § 188(1). The rational prerequisite for this vicarious liability of employers according to the principle of ”corrective justice” stands that there must be a rational linkage between the discharge of appointed duty, the wrongdoing of the employee and consequently the harm caused.However the linkage criteria varied and caused disputes, to which legal theorists and even learned judges have devoted themselves in the heavily piled literatures trying very delicately to frame practically sound principles only to achieve very limited success. The possible defect of the foregoing approaches herein lies in their inobservance of the causation element intrinsic to Civil Code § 188(1), i.e. as the wording ”due to” represents.This article, by means of reviewing the related holdings of our supreme court and applying the reasoning technique of formal logics, attempted to elaborate the criteria of this linkage prerequisite with special emphasis on the logical causation between the discharge of appointed duty and the wrongdoing of the employee. We, with reference to Supreme Court Precedents Year 42-No.1224 (1953), therefore concluded that linkage in question exists if the wrongdoing of the employee is actually the discharge of duty itself, the wrongdoing is the essential or necessary condition of the discharge of duty, or the wrongdoing comprises both or either only one of the discharge of duty and other doing outside the scope of employment. In any of the above, there accordingly will be a direct, conjunction-or disjunction-causation linkage established between the discharge of appointed duty and the harm caused, which build up the logic rationale for vicarious liability of the employers. Hopefully this article will help to elucidate the logic rationale of ”due to discharging appointed duty” as provided in Civil Code § 188(1), and set up a clear-cut criteria to settle the dispute therein.

主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. 吳志正(2009)。民法特殊侵權行為之因果關係邏輯與歸責。東吳法律學報,20(4),149-212。
    連結:
  2. 吳志正(2007)。民事因果關係邏輯性序說。台大法學論叢,36(3),385-464。
    連結:
  3. Holmes, Jr., Oliver W. The Common Law, (1881). Electronic Reproduction. [Buffalo, NY]: Hein online (2005).
  4. Baruch Bush, Robert A.(1986).Between Two Worlds: The Shift from Individual to Group Responsibility in the Law of Causation.UCLA. L. REV,33,1473.
  5. Berger, Margaret A.(2007).Science for Judges Ⅶ Introduction.J. L. & POL'Y,15,1.
  6. Looschelders, Dirk(2006).Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil.Berlin, München:KG. Kohn.
  7. Lucy, William(2007).Philosophy of Private Law.New York:Oxford University Press.
  8. Röckrath, Luidger(2004).Kausalität, Wahrscheinlichkeit und Haftung.München:C.H. Beck.
  9. 王澤鑑(2004)。民法學說與判例研究(一)。王澤鑑=Tez-Chien Wang。
  10. 王澤鑑(2006)。侵權行為法(二)。王澤鑑=Tez-Chien Wang。
  11. 司法院(2001)。司法院89年度邀請各界參與司法改革座談會所提建言暨處理意見彙編。司法院=Judicial Yuan。
  12. 吳瑾瑜(2001)。受僱人執行職務之行為─評最高法院89年度台上字第1161號判決。中原財經法學,6,123-138。
  13. 林更盛(2004)。車行對靠行司機侵權行為的僱用人責任。台灣本土法學雜誌,57,123-129。
  14. 林慶郎(2005)。Taiwan,國立台灣大學法律學系=National Taiwan University。
  15. 姚志明(2005)。侵權行為法。元照=Angel。
  16. 孫森焱(2008)。民法債編總論(上)。孫森焱=Sen-Yen Sun。
  17. 國立台灣大學理則學教學委員會(1995)。理則學新論。正中=Cheng Chung Book Co.。
  18. 陳波(2004)。邏輯學。五南=Wu-Nan Book Inc.。
  19. 陳洸岳(2003)。2002年有關「侵權行為」之最高法院判決的回顧與淺析。台灣本土法學雜誌,52,107-122。
  20. 陳聰富(2004)。侵權歸責原則與損害賠償。元照=Angel。
  21. 黃立(2006)。民法債編總論。黃立=Hwang, Li。
  22. 鄭玉山(2002)。僱用人求償權之限制與時效免責之抗辯(上)。台灣本土法學雜誌,31,1-21。
  23. 蘇惠卿(2007)。僱用人侵權責任之範疇─簡評最高法院95年台上字第2941號判決。台灣本土法學,97,222-228。
  24. 蘇惠卿(2007)。僱用人之損害賠償責任。台灣本土法學,90,229-233。