雙倍風險標準的因果關係論

Comment on the Doubling of the Risk Standard of Causation in Tort Law

10.6509/TLM.2016.6711.06

葉詠翔(Yung-Hsiang Yeh)

雙倍風險標準 ； 因果關係 ； 矯正正義 ； 比例責任制 ； 相對風險值 ； 勝算比 ； The Doubling of the Risk Standard ； Causation ； Corrective Justice ； Proportional Liability ； Relative Risk ； Odds Ratio

法令月刊

67卷11期（2016 / 11 / 01）

124 - 145

繁體中文

本文以雙倍風險標準作為討論核心，雙倍風險標準內容為侵權法應該要在比例的基礎上容許風險升高的回復，但要件為原告必須證明對有毒物質的接觸，對於導致將來疾病發生的風險達到兩倍以上，即流行病學上所稱的相對風險值或勝算比大於2時，作為認定侵權法中因果關係的最低限度門檻。本文認為該標準於不確定因果關係的侵權案件類型，包括食品安全、藥害、環境汙染等毒物侵權領域，起著重要的指導作用，可以同時符應因果關係要件，以及矯正正義者的要求。以該標準限制潛在風險升高的原告人數，將使其具實務上的可行性，純粹的比例責任制系統將造成數以百萬人可以提出風險升高的侵權訴訟。同樣基於機率式因果關係的認知，相較於純粹的比例責任制，雙倍風險標準更適合作為侵權法的歸責原則。

The core issue of this article is the doubling of the risk standard. The content of the standard is ＂Tort law should permit enhanced risk recovery on a proportional basis, but only when a plaintiff can prove that the toxic exposure has more than doubled her risk of contracting disease in the future.＂ In epidemiological terms, this minimum causation threshold is the equivalent of saying that the ＂relative risk＂ or ＂odds ratio＂ of disease based on exposure is greater than two. This Article recognize that the standard has guided function in determining uncertainty of causation, including food, drug, environmental, and. toxic tort cases. The standard is correspond to actual causation and corrective justice. By limiting the number of potential enhanced risk plaintiffs, the standard actually may be administrated feasibly. A pure proportional liability system would allow millions of people to bring multiple enhanced risk tort actions. Based on the probability causation ground, the doubling of the risk standard is better than pure proportional liability system in tort cases.

1. 王榮麟(2011)。因果關係的推論需要多少證據的支持？。科技、醫療與社會，12，243-249。
   連結：
2. 吳志正(2011)。實證醫學數據於醫療事故損害賠償上之意義。臺大法學論叢，40(1)，139-207。
   連結：
3. 吳志正(2008)。以疫學手法作為民事因果關係認定之檢討。東吳法律學報，20(1)，205-236。
   連結：
4. 陳信行(2011)。司法正義與科學事實如何交會？ 從Daubert 爭議看法律、科學與社會。科技、醫療與社會，12，17-60。
   連結：
5. Beecher-Monas, Erica(2014).Lost in translation: Statistical inference in court.Arizona State Law Journal,46,1057+1100-1103.
6. Bunnin, Nicholased.、Tsui-James, E. P.ed.、燕宏遠編、韓民青編(2002)。當代英美哲學概論（上冊）。上海:社會科學文獻出版社。
7. Carroll, S. J.,Hensler, D.,Abrahamse, A.,Gross, J.,White, M.,Ashwood, S.,Sloss, E.(2002).Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation.Santa Monica:RAND.
8. Ceder, Megan A.(2014).A dose of reality: The struggle with causation in toxic tort litigation.Houston Law Review,51,1147-1175.
9. Davies, Huw T. O.,Crombie, Iain K.(2009).,未出版
10. Epstein, Richard A.(1973).A theory of strict liability.The Journal of Legal Studies,2,151-204.
11. Fischer, David A.(2001).Tort recovery for loss of a chance.Wake Forest Law Review,36,605-656.
12. Gordis, Leon、葉錦瑩編譯、陳怡樺編譯、王豊裕編譯(2009)。流行病學。臺北:臺灣愛思唯爾。
13. Hayes, A. Wallace(Ed.)(2007).Principles and Methods of Toxicology.Boca Raton:CRC Press.
14. Henderson, James A., Jr.、Pearson, Richard N.、Kysar, Douglas A.、Siliciano, John A.、王竹譯、丁海俊譯、董春華譯、周玉輝譯(2014)。美國侵權法：實體與程式（第7 版）。北京:北京大學出版社。
15. Hodgson, Ernest(Ed.)(2004).A Textbook of Modern Toxicology.Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons.
16. King, Joseph H., Jr.(1981).Causation, valuation, and chance in personal injury torts involving preexisting conditions and future consequences.The Yale Law Journal,90(6),1353-1397.
17. Klein, Andrew R.(1999).A model for enhanced risk recovery in tort.Washington and Lee Law Review,56(4),1173-1210.
18. Lesaffre, Emmanuel(2008).Use and misuse of the p-value.Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases,66(2),146-149.
19. McDonnell, Deirdre A.(1997).Increased risk of disease damages: Proportional recovery as an alternative to the all or nothing system exemplified by asbestos cases.Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review,24(3),623-649.
20. Perry, Stephen R.(2002).Method and principle in legal theory.The Yale Law Journal,111,1757-1813.
21. Postema, Gerald(Ed.)(2001).Philosophy and the Law of Torts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
22. Robinson, Glen O.(1985).Probabilistic causation and compensation for tortious risk.The Journal of Legal Studies,14(3),779-798.
23. Rosenberg, Alexander(2005).Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction.New York:Routledge.
24. Salsburg, David、葉偉文譯(2001)。統計改變了世界。臺北:天下文化。
25. Schroeder, Christopher H.(1990).Corrective justice and liability for increasing risks.UCLA Law Review,37,439-478.
26. Weinrib, Ernest J.(1983).Toward a moral theory of negligence law.Law and Philosophy,2(1),37-62.
27. Wright, Richard W.(2001).Once more into the bramble bush: Duty, causal contribution, and the extent of legal responsibility, in symposium, wade conference on the third restatement of torts.Vanderbilt Law Review,53(3),1071-1132.
28. 周林東(2004)。科學哲學。上海:復旦大學出版社。
29. 邵文逸(2008)。實用實證醫學，如何判讀統計檢定—p 值的迷思。臺灣醫學，12(2)，216-220。
30. 邱弘毅校閱(2011)。流行病學。臺中:華格那。
31. 陳皓(2014)。侵權法的矯正正義論。黑龍江:黑龍江大學出版社。
32. 陳瑞麟(2014)。掙脫鳥籠─反思臺灣公共衛生議題裡的因果關係。中研院法學期刊，15，283-329。