論慰撫金與懲罰性賠償之關係：從歷史背景及功能演變談近年發展

The Relationship between Non-Pecuniary Damages and Punitive Damages: On the Recent Development from the Historical Background and Function Evolution

10.6199/NTULJ.202303_52(1).0002

陳汝吟(Ju-Yin Chen)

慰撫金 ； 非財產上損害 ； 精神痛苦 ； 懲罰性賠償 ； 消費者保護法 ； 損害賠償 ； 人格權 ； 大法庭裁定 ； Pain and Suffering Damages ； Non-Pecuniary Damages ； Emotional Distress ； Punitive Damages ； Consumer Protection Act ； Damages ； Personality rights ； Ruling of the Grand Chamber

臺大法學論叢

52卷1期（2023 / 03 / 01）

73 - 130

繁體中文;英文

法律的歷史上有很長一段時間係民刑事責任不分，慰撫金與懲罰性賠償淵源的社會背景接近，但不意味二者即同一概念；況早期侵權行為未能細緻地類型化，自多以嚴重冒犯他人權益行為為責任客體。然當代民事賠償觀點，已從加害人行為移轉至被害人損害的填補，故除有形身體受害外，隱私、情感利益等受害，不限加害人主觀故意或過失，對被害人精神痛苦，得運用適當方法衡量並填補。人格權及非財產損害賠償之「慰撫金」，已經歷一段奇幻歷程，這二百年來很大的變化，是現代法律制度對保護源自社會的個人利益需求的一種回應，反映一個國家所達成的法律和經濟發展。我國民法繼受歐陸，過去非財產損害賠償較為保守，現今已有開展；民法嚴守民刑事體系分離及損害賠償一元制，作為懲罰性賠償金計算之「損害額」，自包括財產及非財產上損害。消費者保護法第51條係新領域為達成特別目的之立法選擇，其中牽涉「慰撫金」性質演變與社會價值的當代議題，依此脈絡，本文著重思考「慰撫金」與「懲罰性賠償」之關係，觀察主要國家制度發展之趨勢。適今（2021）年最高法院大法庭作成108年度台上大字第2680號裁定，希望藉由更一步的探討，能有助於對此法律制度與概念因應時代的合理移動，具清楚之理解。

In the history of law, there has been a long period of time that civil liability and criminal liability were not well distinguished. Although the social background of the origin of non-pecuniary damages and punitive damages is close, it does not mean that the two are the same concept. Besides, early torts were not categorized in detail, so assault and battery are often regarded as normative behavior types. However, the contemporary viewpoint has shifted from the act of the tort-feasor to the compensation of the victim's damage. Whether the actor is intentional or negligent, when the victim's physical, privacy or emotional interests were infringed, and thus the victim's intangible mental suffering caused by this, the law should use appropriate methods to measure and adequately recover it. Personality rights and non-pecuniary damages have undergone a fantasy course during the last two hundred years. The great change is a response of the modern legal system to the need to protect personal interests derived from society, reflecting the legal and economic development of a country. Taiwan's civil law is inherited from the European civil law system, and although we have taken a conservative attitude towards non-pecuniary damage compensation in the past, yet, this system has been gradually developed now. Taiwan's law distinguishes between civil and criminal systems, and the law of damages is purely monistic. Therefore, the "damage amount" used to calculate punitive damages should include both pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Law is a choice for the new field to achieve special legislative purposes, which involves the evolution of non-pecuniary damage as well as contemporary issues of social value. Following these lines of thought, this article focuses on the relationship between "non-pecuniary damage" and "punitive damages" by observing the development trends of several major countries. This year (2021) the Supreme Court announced the Ruling of the Grand Chamber Decision No. 2680 (2019), and I hope that by exploring this issue more in-depth, to have a clearer understanding of the rational movement of these legal concepts and systems in changing times.

1. 何建志(2002)。懲罰性賠償金之法理與應用：論最適賠償金額之判定。臺大法學論叢，31(3)，237-289。
   連結：
2. 陳汝吟(2019)。侵害陪伴動物之慰撫金賠償與界限。東吳法律學報，30(3)，45-96。
   連結：
3. 陳聰富(2002)。美國法上之懲罰性賠償金制度。臺大法學論叢，31(5)，163-219。
   連結：
4. 謝哲勝(2001)。懲罰性賠償。臺大法學論叢，30(1)，113-161。
   連結：
5. Banakas, S.(2015).Non-Pecuniary Loss in Personal Injury: Topography Architecture and Nomenclature in the European Landscape.Journal of Comparative Law,10(2),291-342.
6. Barton, W. A.(2010).Recovering For Psychological Injuries.Trial Guides LLC.
7. Behr, V.(2003).Punitive Damages in American and German Law:Tendencies Towards Approximation of Apparently Irreconcilable Concepts.Chicago-Kent Law Review,78(1),105-161.
8. Betunio, M.(2017).Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli.
9. Bronsteen, J.,Buccafusco, C.,Masur, J. S.(2008).Hedonic Adaptation and the Settlement of Civil Lawsuits.Columbia Law Review,108(6),1516-1549.
10. Colby, T. B.(2003).Beyond the Multiple Punishment Problem: Punitive Damages as Punishment for Individual, Private Wrongs.Minnesota Law Review,87(3),583-678.
11. Crowe, K. R.(1990).The Semantical Bifurcation of Noneconomic Loss: Should Hedonic Damage Be Recognized Independently of Pain and Suffering Damage?.Iowa Law Review,75(5),1275-1303.
12. Forstmoser, P. (Hrsg.),Honsell, H.(Hrsg.),Wiegand, W.(Hrsg.)(2005).Richterliche Rechtsfortbildung in Theorie und Praxis.Stämpfli Verlag.
13. Gabler, D. J.(1991).Conscious Pain and Suffering Is Not a Matter of Degree.Marquette Law Review,74(2),289-323.
14. Hau, W.(Hrsg.),Poseck, R.(Hrsg.)(2021).BeckOK BGB.C.H.BECK.
15. Horton Rogers, W.V. (Ed.)(2001).Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in A Comparative Perspective.Springer.
16. Jaffe, L. L.(1953).Damages for Personal Injury: The Impact of Insurance.Law & Contemporary Problems,18(2),219-240.
17. King, J. H., Jr.(2004).Pain and Suffering, Noneconomic Damages, and the Goals of Tort Law.SMU Law Review,57(1),163-209.
18. Knellwolf, P. A.,Strub, P.,von Flüe, K.(2008).ZGB für den Alltag: kommentierte Ausgabe aus der Beobachter-Beratungspraxis.Beobachter-Buchverlag.
19. Koziol, H.(2008).Punitive Damages: A European Perspective.Louisiana Law Review,68(3),741-764.
20. Koziol, H. (Ed.),Wilcox, V. (Ed.)(2009).Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives.Springer.
21. McMichael, B. J.,Viscusi, W. K.(2019).Taming Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards.University of Illinois Law Review,2019(1),171-221.
22. Müller, P.(2000).Punitive Damages und deutsches Schadensersatzrecht.Walter de Gruyter.
23. O’Connell, J.,Carpenter, K.(1983).Payment for Pain and Suffering Through History.Insurance Counsel Journal,50(3),411-417.
24. Oftinger, K.(Hrsg.),Stark, E. W.(Hrsg.)(1995).Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht I: Allgemeiner Teil.Schulthess Juristische Medien.
25. Ogus, A. I.(1972).Damages for Lost Amenities: For a Foot, a Feeling or a Function?.The Modern Law Review,35(1),1-17.
26. Preece, A.(2013).Joyless Life and Lifeless Joy: The Recovery of Hedonic Damages by Plaintiffs in a Persistent Vegetative State.San Diego Law Review,50(3),721-772.
27. Probst, T. (2010). Der Ersatz "immateriellen Schadens" im schweizerischen Haftpflicht- und Strassenverkehrsrecht. In: https://www.unifr.ch/ius/probst/de/assets/public/ImmatSchaden.pdf.
28. Rabin, R. L.(2006).Pain and Suffering and Beyond: Some Thoughts on Recovery for Intangible Loss.Depaul Law Review,55(2),359-378.
29. Rey, Heinz,賀栩栩（譯）(2015).瑞士侵權責任法.中國政法大學.
30. Säcker, F. J.(Hrsg.),Rixecker, R.(Hrsg.),Oetker, H.(Hrsg.),Limperg, B.(Hrsg.)(2018).Münchener Kommentar zum BGB.C.H.BECK.
31. Sarat, A. (Ed.)(2014).Knowing the Suffering of Others: Legal Perspectives on Pain and Its Meanings.University Alabama Press.
32. Schwenzer, I.(2012).Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht: Allgemeiner Teil.Stämpfli.
33. Sebok, A. J.(2007).Punitive Damages: From Myth to Theory.Iowa Law Review,92(3),957-1036.
34. Slizyk, A.(2020).Schmerzensgeld 2021: Handbuch und Tabellen.C.H.BECK.
35. Stiegler, A. M.(2009).Schmerzengeld für Schock- und Trauerschäden.Böhlau.
36. Tolani, M.(2011).U.S. Punitive Damages Before German Courts: A Comparative Analysis with Respect to the Ordre Public.Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law,17(1),185-207.
37. Valentine, G. L.(1990).Hedonic Damages: Emerging Issue in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Claims.Northern Illinois University Law Review,10(3),543-577.
38. Wegen, G.,Sherer, J.(1993).Germany: Federal Court of Justice Decision Concerning the Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Judgments Awarding Punitive Damages.International Legal Materials,32(5),1320-1346.
39. Wilson Elser(2018).Punitive Damages Review: 50-State Survey.Wilson Elser.
40. Wright, R. W.(2003).The Grounds and Extent of Legal Responsibility.San Diego Law Review,40(4),1425-1532.
41. Young, G.,Kane, A. W.,Nicholson, K.(2007).Causality of Psychological Injury: Presenting Evidence in Court.Springer.
42. 升田純(2018)。判例からみる慰謝料算定の実務。民事法研究会。
43. 王澤鑑(2012).人格權法：法釋義學、比較法、案例研究.自刊.
44. 王澤鑑(2017).損害賠償法.自刊.
45. 李志峰(2001)。論懲罰性賠償金之起源及其適用上之爭議。消費者保護研究，7，265-304。
46. 周伯峰(2014)。「歧視禁止」作為私法自治的限制？：簡評德國《一般平等對待法》中的民事上歧視禁止規定及其爭議。月旦法學雜誌，24，127-150。
47. 林更盛(2018)。懲罰性賠償金。月旦法學教室，190，14-16。
48. 林恩瑋(2011)。國際私法上外國懲罰性賠償金判決之承認：以臺灣實務裁判為中心。法學叢刊，56(3)，137-160。
49. 林誠二(2015).債編各論新解：體系化解說（中）.瑞興圖書.
50. 林德瑞(1998)。論懲罰性賠償。國立中正大學法學集刊，1，25-66。
51. 林德瑞(2004)。懲罰性賠償金適用之法律爭議問題。月旦法學雜誌，110，40-54。
52. 邱聰智,姚志明（修訂）(2014).新訂民法債編通則（上）.自刊.
53. 張新寶（編）(2012).精神損害賠償制度研究.法律出版社.
54. 許政賢(2009)。企業經營者過失致消費者死亡之懲罰性賠償金：最高院九八台上二五二。台灣法學雜誌，131，175-177。
55. 許政賢(2021)。消費者死亡案例類型之懲罰性賠償金：最高法院 108 年度台上字第 1750 號民事判決。月旦裁判時報，104，25-32。
56. 許政賢(2016)。侵權行為責任中精神損害賠償與懲罰性賠償金：以消費者保護法第五十一條為例。政大法學評論，146，305-378。
57. 陳惠馨(2002)。德國法制史系列講座第二回：德國法與日耳曼民族。月旦法學雜誌，90，241-252。
58. 陳惠馨(2002)。德國法制史系列講座第三回：中世紀時代的德國法（上）。月旦法學雜誌，91，209-221。
59. 陳惠馨(2003)。德國法制史系列講座第四回：中世紀時代的德國法（下）。月旦法學雜誌，92，212-226。
60. 陳聰富(1997)。美國懲罰性賠償金的發展趨勢：改革運動與實證研究的對恃。臺大法學論叢，27(1)，231-264。
61. 曾世雄(2005).非財產上損害賠償.元照.
62. 曾品傑(2005)。論消費者健康與安全之人權保障暨其界線：最高法院關於轎車缺陷之判決評釋。財產法暨經濟法，3，77-115。
63. 詹森林(2010)。消保法懲罰性賠償金責任之過失應否限於重大過失？台灣高等法院高雄分院九十七年上字第八一號民事判決之評析。月旦裁判時報，4，50-59。
64. 詹森林(2010)。非財產上損害與懲罰性賠償金。月旦裁判時報，5，32-39。
65. 鄭冠宇(2017).民法債編總論.新學林.
66. 戴志傑(2015)。懲罰性賠償金數額計算基礎的「損害額」應否包含非財產上損害？：我國消保法近十年的司法判決分析與檢討。靜宜法學，4，95-165。
67. 齋藤修編(2015)。慰謝料算定の理論。ぎょうせい。

1. (2023)。消費者保護法上商品與服務責任之實務發展。月旦法學雜誌，336，6-35。