論動力車輛事故之侵權行為責任、責任保險與無過失補償：以經濟抑制理論為基礎

Automobile Accidents: Tort Law, Liability Insurance, and No-Fault Compensation from the Perspective of Economic Deterrence Theory

10.6199/NTULJ.2010.39.01.05

汪信君(Hsin-Chun Wang)

侵權行為 ； 無過失補償 ； 責任保險 ； 嚴格責任 ； 經濟抑制理論 ； 事業責任理論 ； 強制汽車責任保險法 ； tort ； no-fault compensation ； liability insurance ； strict liability ； economic deterrence theory ； enterprise liability theory ； Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act

臺大法學論叢

39卷1期（2010 / 03 / 01）

237 - 285

繁體中文

於國內過去民事法學研究上，關於侵權行為與保險制度間之互動關係甚少相關文獻加以探討。因此本文乃以侵權行為理論中涉及侵權行為與保險制度兩者間關係之學說為基礎，亦即分別論述事業責任理論與經濟抑制理論對於兩者互動關係之探討。以事業責任理論為例，主張此說之學者多強調傳統過失責任為基礎之侵權行為無法適用於現代侵權行為類型，因此倡議應以全面性社會補償制度取代侵權行為對於損害補償之功能。經濟抑制理論學者則另強調侵權行為之重要機能為抑制事故之發生，因此著重探討不同侵權行為規範下所產生之抑制效果。當不同侵權行為規範對於加害人、被害人以及社會財富產生抑制影響時，責任保險與無過失補償制度之出現則反而降低原先侵權行為規範之抑制機能。本文即以經濟抑制理論為基礎探討現行動力車輛交通事故下侵權行為與強制汽車責任保險間之互動關係。而立法改革上無過失補償制度漸有倡議者之同時，本文亦藉由實證研究結果之歸納，探討無過失補償對於侵權行為抑制機能之影響及其間接造成死亡事故率之增加。同時亦認為如欲導入無過失補償制度時，則更為完善之費率機制以及適當之交通罰則為應先考量之方法，藉此以降低無過失補償制度所可能產生之問題。

From the traditional civil law legal research in Taiwan, the legal-economic analysis concerning the relationship between liability insurance and the tort system has seldom been carried out. As a result, this study will be based on the discussion regarding two tort theories in U.S., namely enterprise liability theory and economic deterrence theory. Enterprise liability theorists mainly advocate the abolition of the fault system in favor of social insurance scheme. In contrast, economic deterrence theorists provide a view to analyze deterrence effect of different tort rules and to address the main function of tort law, which should give an incentive to a reduction of total social costs of accidents. As the effects of torts rules may influence on the injuries’ behavior, victims' behavior and social welfare, liability insurance and no-fault compensation might significant influence these effects. Based on the economic deterrence theory, this paper reviews the current legal system relating to automobile accidents. While the legal issue regarding the no-fault compensation is emerging, several empirical evidences can be found that no-fault compensation might distort the deterrence effect offered by tort law and would possible increase in fatal accident rates. In this regard, it is suggested that better experiences rating plans and an appropriate set of penalties would mitigate higher accident rates in the adoption of no-fault compensation.

1. 陳忠五(2005)。法國交通事故損害賠償法的發展趨勢：以一九八五年七月五日法律的改革為中心。臺大法學論叢，34(1)，81-184。
   連結：
2. (1965).Restatement (Second) of Torts.
3. World Wide Web
4. Abraham, K. S.(2005).Liability insurance and accident prevention: The evolution of an idea.Maryland Law Review,64,573-612.
5. Atiyah, P. S.(1997).The damages lottery.Hart (UK):
6. Baldwin, R.,Cave, M.(1999).Uderstanding regulation: Theory, strategy and practice.Oxford:
7. Brown, J. P.(1973).Towards an economic theory of liability.Journal of Legal Studies,2,323-349.
8. Bruce, C. J.(1984).The deterrent effects of automobile insurance and Tort Law: A survey of the empirical literature.Law and Policy,6(1),67-100.
9. Calabresi, G.(1970).The cost of accidents: Legal and economic analysis.Yale University Press.
10. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9602
11. Cummins, J. D.,Phillips, R. D.,Weiss, M. A.(2001).The incentive effects of no-fault automobile insurance.Journal of Law and Economics,44(2),427-464.
12. Dewees, D.,Trebilcock, M.(1992).The efficacy of the TOP system and its alternatives A review of the empirical evidence.Osgoode HallLew Journal,30,57-138.
13. Epstein, R. A.(1985).Products liability as an insurance market.Journal of Legal Studies,14,645-669.
14. Faure, Michael,Grimeaud, David,M. Faure (Ed.)(2003).Finanical Assurance Issues of Environmental Liability.Detterence, insurability, and compensation in environmental liability-future developments in the European Union.
15. Gamer, B. A.(1995).A dictionary of modern legal usage.Oxford:
16. Report of inquiry into motor vehicle accident compensation in ontario
17. Goldberg, J. C. P.(2002).Twentieth-century tort theory.Georgetown Law Journal,91,513-583.
18. Goldberg, J. C. P.(1997).Comment, misconduct, misfortune, and just compensation: Weinstein on Torts.Columbia Law Review,97,2034-2063.
19. Harris, D.(1984).Compensation and support for illness and injury.Oxford:
20. James, F.(1948).Accident liability reconsidered: The impact of liability insurance.Yale Law Journal,57,549-570.
21. Kaplow, L.,Shavell, S.(2002).Fairness versus welfare.Harvard:
22. Keating, G. C.(1997).The idea of fairness in the law of enterprise liability.Michigan Law Review,95,1266-1339.
23. Keeton, K. E.(1959).Conditional fault in the law of torts.Harvard Law Review,72,401-444.
24. Kochanowski, P. S.,Young, M. V.(1985).Deterrent aspects of no-fault automobile insurance: Some empirical findings.Journal of Risk and Insurance,52,269-288.
25. Landes, E.(1982).Insurance liability and accidents: A theoretical and empirical investigation of the effect of no-fault accidents.Journal of Law & Economics,25,49-65.
26. Landes, W. M.(1987).The economic structure of Tort Law.
27. Landes, W. M.,Posner, R. A.(1981).The positive economic theory of Tort Law.Georgia Law Review,15,851-885.
28. Mattei, U.(2005).The rise and fall of law and economics: An essay for Judge Guido Calabresi.Maryland Law Review,64,220-249.
29. McEwen, I.(1989).No-fault and road accidents: Some australasian evidence.International Review of Law and Economics,9,13-24.
30. O''Connell, J.(1994).Blending reform of Tort liability and health insurance: A necessary mix.Cornell Law Review,79,1303-1338.
31. Oliphant, K.,Helmut Koziol (Eds.),Barbara C. Steininger (Eds.)(2004).Rylands v Fletcher and the emergence of enterprise liability in the common law.European Tort Law.
32. Posner, R. A.(2005).Guido Calabresi's The costs of accidents: A reassessment.Maryland Law Review,64,12-23.
33. Rea, S. A.,Osborne Commisssion (Ed.)(1988).Compensation for Automobile Accident Victims in Ontario: A Simulation.Report of Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario.
34. Schwartz, G. T.(2000).Auto no-fault and first-party insurance: Advantages and problems.Southern California Law Review,73,611-675.
35. Shavell, S.(1987).Economic analysts of accident law.
36. Shavell, S.(2000).On the Social Function and the Regulation of Liability Insurance.Geneva Papers on Risk and Ins.,25,166-179.
37. Shavell, S.(1980).Strict liability versus negligence.Journal of Legal Studies,9,1-25.
38. Shavell, S.(1982).On liability and insurance.Bell Journal of Economics,13,120-132.
39. Shavell, S.(2004).Foundations of economic analysis of law.The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
40. Simon, J.(1998).Driving governmentality: Automobile accidents, insurance, and the challenge to social order in the inter-war years, 1919-1941.Connecticut Insurance Law Journal,4,521-588.
41. Sugarman, S. D.(1989).Doing away with personal injury law Quorum Books.
42. Viscussi, W. K.(1983).Alternative approaches to valuing the health impacts of accidents: Liability law and prospective evaluations.Law and Contemporary Problems,46,49-68.
43. White, G. E.(2003).Tort Law in America: An intellectual history.New York:Oxford University Press.
44. Zador, P.,Adrian, L.(1986).Re-analysis of the effects of no-fault auto insurance on fatal crashes.Journal of Risk and Insurance,53,226-241.
45. 木宮高彥、羽成守、坂東司朗(1986)。注釈自動車損害賠價保障法。東京:有斐閣。
46. 王澤鑑(1998)。侵權行為法（一）。台北:王澤鑑。
47. 王澤鑑(2005)。損害賠償法之目的：損害填補、損害預防、懲罰制裁。月旦法學雜誌，123，207-219。
48. 王澤鑑(2005)。特殊侵權行為（八）：動力車輛駕駛人責任與強制汽車責任保險制度。台灣本土法學，73，23-36。
49. 加藤一郎(1974)。法律学全集：不法行為。東京:有斐閣。
50. 江朝國(2004)。論強制汽車責任保險法被保險人之範圍：兼評相關修正草案之規定。月旦法學雜誌，111，116-126。
51. 江朝國(2001)。汽車交通事故特別補償基金之功能及補償關係之釐清：評臺灣高等法院高雄分院九十年度上易字第二二號民事判決。月旦法學雜誌，78，58-72。
52. 江朝國(2006)。強制汽車責任保險法。台北:元照。
53. 我妻栄(1937)。事務管理·不当所得·不法行為。東京:日本評論社。
54. 林勳發(2005)。強制汽車責任保險法主要爭議與修正條文評述。台灣本土法學，69，60-88。
55. 武田昌之(1999)。運行供用者と共同運行供用者：規範的把握と個別的判斷。損害保險研究，61(2)，41-80。
56. 陳忠五(2005)。強制汽車責任保險法立法目的之檢討。台灣本土法學，70，59-100。
57. 楊佳元(2005)。侵權行為過失責任之體系與一般要件。台北大學法學論叢，56，205-254。
58. 葉啟洲(2005)。從審判實務檢討現行強制汽車保險機制之難題：以保險汽車與未保險汽車共生事故為例，兼評新法相關修正。成大法學，9，125-207。
59. 潮見佳男(1999)。不法行為法。東京:信山社。
60. 蘇惠卿(2001)。自危險責任之生成與發展論民法第191條之3：民法研究會第十九次學術研討會。法學叢刊，181，171-193。
61. 坂口光男(1991)。保険法。東京:文真堂。

1. 蔡信華(2018)。海事國際公約無過失責任制度之研究。東海大學法學研究，55，37-93。
2. 陳俞沛(2019)。論醫療損害風險社會化分擔－以全民健康保險之國家責任為核心。東吳法律學報，31(2)，83-122。
3. (2012)。論責任保險人之和解義務─以美國法制為參考。中原財經法學，29，27-76。