被害人與有過失之研究

Abstract

依我國民法第217條規定，被害人對損害之發生或擴大與有過失者，法院得減輕或免除損害賠償金額，該條規定之適用，仍應由構成要件與法律效果之層次分別觀察。被害人承擔與有過失責任之前提要件，為被害人行為有過失、被害人具與有過失能力、以及行為與損害結果之間具相當因果關係；上開前提要件該當後，法律效果則為法院得斟酌減輕或免除損害賠償數額。 目前法院實務運作，對與有過失之構成要件及法律效果概念多有混淆，不僅欠缺被害人與有過失能力與因果關係要件之論述，甚至經常將民法第184條第2項違反保護他人法律推定過失之舉證責任倒置，不當應用於推定被害人行為與損害間之因果關係，值得商榷；於被害人「過失」之認定，亦經常欠缺被害人違反何種對己義務、為何賦予被害人該種對己義務之實質論述，逕行認定構成與有過失。而於法律效果層次，關於雙方當事人就損害各自應承擔之比例如何決定，法院實務更欠缺明確標準甚至缺乏實質論述。與有過失概念之界定、要件操作與解釋之精緻化、以及適用要件與法律效果層次之區辨，皆為本文欲處理之問題。 被害人過失之構成，須以其行為違反應盡之對己義務為前提。按被害人應有防免損害發生與防免損害擴大之對己義務，損害發生之與有過失，可能係被害人積極創設或提高損害風險、或自願接近或承擔風險之作為，亦有可能係未採取適當風險預防措施之不作為。於判斷被害人於個案中是否有作為或不作為義務，應隨時回歸公平原則之理念，傳統公平原則之操作，著重於避免使加害人承擔過重責任之面向，經常忽略對被害人之公平；本文認為，於設定被害人應盡之對己義務時，應兼顧加害人與被害人之間的公平，除了不應使加害人承擔過重責任之外，更應著重於個案中對己義務之賦予，是否將造成被害人過重負擔。 而被害人是否「應注意、能注意卻疏於注意」而違反對己義務，原則上應視被害人是否已達善良管理人之注意程度而定；惟被害人因年齡或個人能力上欠缺，難以期待其達到善良管理人注意程度標準者，該標準仍有適度調降之可能。目前歐洲侵權行為法之發展趨勢，更朝向於交通事件中，排除未成年孩童、老年人或身心障礙者與有過失之適用，值得參考。 於危險責任體系下，鑑於賠償義務人需承擔之責任相當嚴格，法院屢透過消保法第7條「可合理期待安全性」、國賠法第3條「設置或管理欠缺」與其他免責要件之寬泛解釋，或逕以被害人行為中斷責任成立因果關係，阻卻無過失責任之成立，甚至將被害人之過失行為完全排除於法律保護範圍之外，反而有架空危險責任構成要件之虞。而於認定被害人之與有過失時，除了合理限縮賠償義務人之嚴格責任外，更應將被害人是否有能力控管或分散危險納入考量，始能達到雙方之間的公平。 補償與強制保險制度之產生，一方面係為避免由個別賠償義務人獨力承擔損害負擔過重，而將損害分散由集體承擔；一方面透過簡便程序，使被害人所受損害迅速、確實獲得填補，其規範目的操作模式均異於損害賠償制度，此時是否有與有過失之適用，應回歸各該補償或保險制度之精神加以觀察。如於補償金或保險金之核發程序，納入被害人是否有過失之判斷，將使被害人損害迅速、確實獲填補之制度精神被架空，且於集體承擔損害之前提下，個別加害人承擔過重損害之考量並不存在，則與有過失適用之正當性與必要性較為不足。 最後，於與有過失法律效果之決定，本文認為應先比較雙方行為各自對損害結果之原因力程度，決定雙方各自應分擔之比例，再於該比例於個案中有失公平時，斟酌雙方當事人主觀過失程度或其他衡平因素進行調整，較符合民事責任之本質，並得兼顧個案之公平。

Contributory negligence as an element of tort law is provided in Article 217 of Civil Code. The Article states that if an injured person has negligently contributed in causing or aggravating the injury, the court may reduce the amount of compensation or release the compensation entirely. Reduction of damages can take place only if the conditions of contributory negligence are satisfied. Article 217 entails a contributory element from the victim in the sense that the damaged party neglects the duty of care for oneself; causation and tortious capacity as requirements of fault liability are also conditions of contributory negligence. However, the meanings and scope of these conditions are ill defined. As such, the difference between the conditions and consequence of contributory negligence has caused confusion in practice. The objectives of this study were thus to compare the German legal system and European principles as they relate to tort law and to propose possible solutions through analysis of theories and case studies. Contributory negligence requires the damaged party to take reasonable care of its own interest. The theoretical basis for this requirement is the burden of self-protection, namely, the duty of care concerning an individual’s own affairs. Article 217 states that contributory negligence should be considered not only when the damage is caused by positive self-endangering actions of the damaged party, but also when the damaged party neglects to take positive self-protecting measures to avert or minimize potential damages. Contributory negligence can also be established if the victim, while fully aware of the circumstances, undertakes an activity or participate in a situation involving an unusually high degree of danger. The principles of justice and fairness between tortfeasors and victims are important in defining the obligations of the damaged party. While considerations should be given to prevent tortfeasors from unnecessary heavy liabilities, fairness and reasonableness should also be ensured for the injured party. Generally, the standard of care can be established by considering the actions of a reasonably prudent person. However, in the case of contributory negligence, the legal practice tends to allow for subjective factors of the victim. Although the standard of care required of the damaged party is the same as that of the tortfeasor, exceptions may be made for certain populations. According to the provisions of Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), contributory negligence can be disregarded if the victim is underage or handicapped in cases of traffic accidents. In a legal environment of strict liability, the interpretation of contributory negligence tends to be broad, and courts may expand the scope of contributory negligence to an extent such that compensations are excluded completely. Unreasonably strict definitions of a specific provision’s protective purpose, combined with the application of the controversial theory of superseding cause, make it increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to request compensations. The justification of contributory negligence under the legal system of No-Fault Compensation and Compulsory Liability Insurance is also problematic if the purpose of efficient compensation is not achieved. The reduction of compensation occurs upon the satisfaction of all the conditions of contributory negligence. The most likely consequence of contributory negligence is a distribution of damages between the tortfeasor and the victim in the form of quotas; however, how these damages may be distributed remains elusive in practice. This study proposes that the court should first conduct an appropriate apportionment procedure by balancing the casual contributions of the liable and the injured parties. Subsequently, an equitable adjustment procedure may be performed by considering the extent of blameworthiness and other factors, such as socioeconomic status. As a result, the consequences of contributory negligence may become more predictable.