論環境有害物質潛在損害之法律救濟途徑──以美國法院實務見解為中心

How to Solve a Dilemma of Civil Remedies to Latent Harms in Toxic Environment -- Focusing on American Court’s Cases

10.6509/TLM.2016.6702.05

李雯靜(Wen-Jing Li)

環境侵權 ； 潛在損害 ； 法律救濟 ； 預防責任 ； 新型訴訟 ； Environmental Tort ； Latent Harm ； Legal Remedy ； Precaution Liability ； Non-Traditional Claims

法令月刊

67卷2期（2016 / 02 / 01）

81 - 106

繁體中文

從1980年代中期開始，環境有害物質侵權訴訟逐漸得到美國法學界和實務界的關注。根據傳統侵權行為法理論，原告受到物理性侵害（有形性侵害）或身體受到實際傷害是請求損害賠償的前提。環境侵權潛在受害者因尚未表現出疾病症狀，其索賠面臨著法律上的難題。然而，環境污染（有害物質暴露）所引發的健康損害通常具有潛在性和延遲性，其結果一旦發生即不可逆轉，受害者待到疾病到來時的索賠往往缺乏實際價值。因此，環境侵權潛在損害的法律救濟問題成為21世紀現代侵權行為法的新課題，幫助潛在受害者尋求法律救濟的「非傳統型侵權訴訟」也應運而生。為回應社會的現實需要，美國法院逐漸允許環境有害物質的潛在受害者在疾病發生之前提起侵權訴訟，並在一定條件下為其提供法律救濟。

Since 1980’s, toxic tort claims have attracted lots of attention among American jurists. According to theory of traditional tort law, plaintiff should prove physical injury suffered when he or she brings a lawsuit. However, with the development of society, people gradually begin to recognize that exposure of toxic substance occurs frequently and the serious problems caused by latent harm could not be ignored anymore. As a challenge to traditional tort law, how to remedy potential victims becomes more and more important in modern society. In recent years, with the development of common law, in responding to change in society, American courts allowed people who have not endure physical injury yet to bring suits. Potential victims often bring claims based on such as fear of future injuries or increased risk of disease or medical monitoring.

1. (1998).Latent harms and risk-based damages.Harvard Law Review,111(6),1505-1522.
2. American Law Institute(1965).Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts 2d..Paul, MN:American Law Institute.
3. American Law Institute(1991).Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury: Reporters' Study: Vol. 1 The International Framework.Philadelphia, PA:American Law Institute.
4. Blomquist, Robert F.(1993).Emerging themes and dilemmas in American toxic tort law, 1988-91: A legalhistorical and philosophical exegesis.Southern Illinois University Law Journal,18,1-119.
5. Bourne, Richard(2005).Medical monitoring without physical injury: The least justice can do for those industry has terrorized with poisonous products.Southern Methodist University Law Review,58,251-302.
6. Cranor, Carl F.(2006).Toxic Torts: Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
7. Dobbs, Dan B.(1973).Handbook on the Law of Remedies: Damages, Equity, Restitution.St. Paul, MN:West.
8. Dworkin, Terry Morehead(1984).Fear of disease and delayed manifestation of injuries: A solution or a pandora's box?.Fordham Law Review,53(3),527-577.
9. Eggen, Jean Macchiaroli(2005).Toxic Torts in a Nutshell.St. Paul, MN:Thomson/West.
10. Gara, Leslie S.(1988).Medical surveillance damages: Using common sense and the common law to mitigate the dangers posed by environmental hazards.Harvard Environmental Law Review,12,265-304.
11. Grodsky, Jamie A.(2007).Genomics and Toxic Torts: Dismantling the Risk-Injury Divide.Stanford Law Review,59(6),1671-1734.
12. Hazard, Geoffrey C., Jr.(2000).The Futures Problem.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,148(6),1901-1918.
13. Henderson, James A.,Twerski, Aaron(2002).Asbestos litigation gone mad: Exposure-based recovery for increased risk, mental distress, and medical monitoring.South Carolina Law Review,53,815-850.
14. Joffe, Adam P.(2009).The medical monitoring remedy: Ongoing controversy and a proposed solution.Chicago-Kent Law Review,84(2),663-689.
15. Kanner, Allan(1991).Environmental and Toxic Tort Trials.Charlottesville, VA:Michie Co.
16. Kole, J. S.(Ed.),Nye, S.(Ed.),Spitz, S.(Ed.)(1999).Environmental Litigation.Chicago, IL:Section of Litigation, American Bar Association.
17. Love, Tamsen Douglass(1996).Deterring irresponsible use and disposal of toxic-substances - The case for legislative recognition of increased risk causes of action.Vanderbilt Law Review,49(3),789- 823.
18. Maskin, A.,Cailteux, K. L.,McLaren, J. M.(2000).Medical monitoring: Aviable remedy for deserving plaintiffs or tort law's most expensive consolation prize?.William Mitchell Law Review,27(1),521-550.
19. McCarter, George W. C.(1993).Medical sue-veillance: A history and critique of the medical monitoring remedy in toxic tort litigation.Rutgers Law Review,45,227-283.
20. O'Reilly, James T.(1992).Toxic Torts Practice Guide.New York:McGraw-Hill.
21. Pizzirusso, James(2000).Increased risk, fear of disease and medical monitoring: Are novel damage claims enough to overcome causation difficulties in toxic torts?.The Environmental Lawyer,7(1),183-206.
22. Prosser, W. L.(Ed.),Keeton, W. P.(Ed.),Dobbs, D. B.(Ed.),Keeton, R. E.(Ed.),Owen, D. G.(Ed.)(1984).Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts.St. Paul, MN:West.
23. Prosser, William L.(1971).Handbook of the Law of Torts.St. Paul, MN:West.
24. Schwartz, V. E.,Lorber, L.,Laird, E. J.(2005).Medical monitoring: The right way and the wrong way.Missouri Law Review,70(2),349-385.
25. Slagel, Allan T.(1988).Medical surveillance damages: A solution to the inadequate compensation of toxic tort victims.Indiana Law Journal,63(4),849-876.
26. Venugopal, Pankaj(2002).The class certification of medical monitoring Claims.Columbia Law Review,102(6),1659-1695.
27. 小海範亮(2013)。原発事故損害賠償請求に関する弁護士の具体的取組み─これまでのADR 申立活動と地域住民の組織化。環境と公害，43(2)，25-31。
28. 王利明(2009)。建立和完善多元化的受害人救濟機制。中國法學，4，146-161。
29. 尾崎寛直(2013)。「被爆」と「被曝」から被害補償を考える。環境と公害，43(2)，44-50。
30. 葉名怡(2013)。論侵權預防責任對傳統侵權法的挑戰。法律科學，2，121-131。
31. 寧金成、田土城(2002)。民法上之損害研究。中國法學，106，104-112。
32. 劉士國(2015)。關於設立環境污染損害國家補償基金的建議─以重金屬污染損害為中心的思考。政法論叢，2，111-118。
33. 藤倉皓一郎(1994)。アメリカにおける有害物質による健康被害訴訟の動向。法曹時報，46(6)，1031-1056。
34. 樋口範雄(2009)。アメリカ不法行為法。東京:弘文堂。