工傷損害賠償救濟機制比較研究

Comparative Study on Workers' Compensation Systems

10.6509/TLM.201310_64(10).0006

梅瑞琦(Richard Mei)

工傷損害賠償 ； 排他救濟規則 ； 雙重救濟機制 ； 平行來源規則 ； workers' compensation ； exclusive remedy rule ； double recovery ； collateral rule

法令月刊

64卷10期（2013 / 10 / 01）

115 - 145

繁體中文

在工傷保險與人身損害賠償關係問題上，中國大陸法律缺乏明確規定，而學界亦爭論不休。通過介紹比較各國立法，並回顧歷史闡明排他救濟規則的正當性基礎，指出雙重救濟機制較為符合公平理念，並能將有限資源配置給更有需要的嚴重受害雇員。以保險成本的承擔作為雙重補償的理由並不成立，侵權損害賠償是否扣減工傷保險賠償金額應取決於法律具體目的。

1. 俄勒岡州憲法（Article 1, section 10）
2. Murphy v. ARA Services, Inc., 164 Ga.Ap. 859, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982)
3. Smothers v. Gresham Transfer, Inc., 332 Or. 83, 23 P.3d 333 (2001)
4. 《安全生產法》第48條
5. 《使用有毐物品作業場所勞動保護條例法》第45條
6. Melissa Taylor Bell, Irakli Khodeli, Workers' Comp Trend Alert, February 2004, 3-4.
7. 《工傷保險條例》第8條
8. 58 U.S. (17 How.) 152, 15 L. Ed. 68 (1854)
9. 59 Ohio St. 3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108 (1991)
10. Coates v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 N.M. 47, 976 P.2d 999 (1999)
11. (2007).,Australian Safety and Compensation Council=ASCC.
12. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: New Zealand, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 8, 2, 88.
13. (2007).,未出版
14. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Texas, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 2.
15. 36 Ohio St. 3d 100, 522 N.E.2d 489 (1988)
16. David K. Law, Issue in Workers' Compensation Versus Tory, July 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 6, 48, 15, 35.
17. 15 Ohio St. 3d 90, 472 N.E.2d 1046, 15 O.B.R. 246 (1984)
18. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Victoria, Australia, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), p3, n.5.
19. 《職業病防治法》第52條
20. Kennedy v. Pineland State Bank, 211 Ga.App.375, 439 S.E.2d 106 (1993)
21. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Company, 427 Mich. 1, 11, 398 N.W.2d 882, 892 (1986)
22. (2004).Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Historical Overview & Moving Forward from the 1991 Reform.Associated Industries of Massachusetts Foundation.
23. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Oregon, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 3, 2, n. 2.
24. 131 N.M. 272, 34 P. 3d 1148 (2001)
25. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Washington, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 2.
26. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Sweden, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 7.
27. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Queensland, Australia, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 2.
28. Unreason in the Law od Damages: The Collateral Source Rule.Harv. L. Rev.,77,741+748-753.
29. (2008).Workers' Compensation & Employer Liability Quarterly,18(3)
30. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: New South Wales, Australia, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 3.
31. Erika, L. Austin, Esquire, The Exclusivity Provision of the Workers' Compensation Act No Longer Serves as a Bar to Defamation Suits, 4, http://www.harvpenn.com/pdf/wcomp/pub_wc_ea.pdf
32. 170 N.J. 602, 790 A.2d 884 (2002)
33. Charles Tenser, Esq., Recent Challenges to Exclusive Remedy Bend-But Don't Break-the Workers Compensation System, 45, 46 http://www.ncci.com/media/pdf/IR_Recent_Challenges.pdf
34. 30 N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382, 282 N.E.2d 288 (1972)
35. City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. 337 Pa. 1, 10 A.2d 434 (1940)
36. Comparative Review of Workers' Compensation Systems in Select Jurisdictions, JURISDICTION: Germany, 1998 (paper completed for the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada), 4, 6.
37. Altmeyer, Arthur.The Future of Social Security in America.SOC. SERV. REV.,27,251.
38. Bernstein, Merton C.(1977).Third Party Claim in Workers' Compensation: A Proposal to Do More with Less.Wash. U. L. Q.,1977,543-546+555-556.
39. Clayton, Alan(2007).,未出版
40. Eaton, Thomas A..Revisiting The Intersection of Workers' Compensation and Product Liability: An Assessment of A Proposed Federal Solution to An Old Problem.Tenn. L. Rev.,64,881-886.
41. Epstein, Richard A..The Historical Origins and Economic Structure of Workers' Compensation Law.Ga. L. Rev.,16,775.
42. Finch, Lane(2007).Unenforceability of Worker's Comp Exclusion.Alabama Defense Lawyers Association Journal,23(1),15-16.
43. Fortin, Bernard,Lanoie, Paul(1998).,未出版
44. Gabel, Joan,Klein, Robert,Mansfield, Nancy(1998).,未出版
45. Giammarino, Ron,Garvey, Gerald(1998).Final Report Prepared for Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, CanadaFinal Report Prepared for Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, Canada,未出版
46. Gómez, Fernando,Artigot, Mireia.,未出版
47. Haas, Theodore F..On Reintegrating Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability.Ga. L. Rev.,21,843+852-57.
48. Hlinak, Matt(2009).In Defense of the Increased-Risk Doctrine in Workers' compensation.Journal of Business & Economics Research,7(4),58.
49. Hunt, H. Allan(2004).A Report of the Study Panel on Benefit Adequacy of the Workers' Compensation Steering CommitteeA Report of the Study Panel on Benefit Adequacy of the Workers' Compensation Steering Committee,Michigan:W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Kalamazoo.
50. Jackson, Melissa M..Employer Liability Under the Third Party Provision of the Washington Industrial Insurance Act: The Dual Capacity and Dual Persona Doctrines in Evans v. Thompson.Seattle Univ. L. R.,19,187+192+195-197+207.
51. Kleeberg, John M..From Strict Liability to Workers' Compensation: The Prussian Railroad Law, The German Liability Act, and The Introduction of Bismarck's Accident Insurance in Germany, 1838-1883.International Law and Politics,36,53-54+69+80-81+96-97+105.
52. Posner, Richard A..Explaining The Variance in The Number of Tort Suits Across U.S. States and Between The United States and England.J. Legal Stud.,26,477-478.
53. Schafer, Julie A..The Constitutionality of Offsetting Collateral Benefits Under Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.Ohio St. L.J.,53,587.
54. Schwartz, Gary T..Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Workers' Compensation: The Recent California Experience.Md. L. Rev.,52,983+988.
55. Schwartz, Gary T..The Character of Early American Tort Law.UCLA L. Rev.,36,641+643-70.
56. Schwartz, Gary T..Tort Law and The Economy in Nineteenth-century America: A Reinterpretation.Yale L. J.,90,1717+1759-65.
57. Schwartz, Victor E..Tort Law Reform: Strict Liability and the Collateral Source Rule Do Not Mix.Vand. L. Rev.,39,569.
58. Skoppek, Jürgen O.(1989).Litigation and the Market: Restoring the Balance Between Individual and Employer Rights.
59. Williams, C. Arthur, Jr.(1991).An International Comparison of Workers' Compensation.Kluwer Academic Publishers.
60. 王澤鑒(1998)。民法學說與判例研究。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
61. 呂琳(2003)。工傷保險與民事賠償適用關係研究。法商研究，2003(3)，60。
62. 彼得．凱恩、王仰光譯(2008)。阿狄亞論事故、賠償及法律。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
63. 林嘉、馬特(2008)。工傷賠償請求權競合問題研究。法學論壇，2008(3)，124。
64. 約翰．法比安．維特、田雷譯(2008)。事故共和國─殘疾的工人、貧窮的寡婦與美國法的重構。上海:上海三聯書店。
65. 張平華、郭明瑞(2008)。關於工傷保險賠償與侵權損害賠償的關係。法律適用，2008(10)，33。
66. 張新寶(2007)。工傷保險賠償請求權與普通人身普害賠償請求權的關係。中國法學，2007(2)，64。
67. 張新寶(2007)。工傷保險賠償請求權與普通人身普害賠償請求權的關係。中國法學，2007(2)，56+64-65。
68. 張照東(2007)。工傷案件賠償請求權競合問題研究。河北法學，2007(3)，109+112。
69. 陳現傑(2004)。《最高人民法院關於審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》的若干理論與實務問題解析。法律適用，2004(2)，8。
70. 喻承躍(2008)。工傷賠償與民事侵權賠償的關係─從司法審判的角度審視。黑龍江省政法管理幹部學院學報，2008(4)，90-91。
71. 曾世雄(2001)。損害賠償法原理。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
72. 劉海紅(2009)。工傷保險賠償與民事損害賠償適用關係探析─兼評法釋（2003）20號第12條。山東審判，2009(2)，93。