海上貨物運送人法定免責事由之回顧與展望-以履行輔助人之過失為中心

Abstract

海上貨物運送過程中，運送人負有船舶適航性義務與貨物照管義務，但因為發展航運之目的，減輕運送人責任，又規定法定免責事由，故海上貨物運送，運送人之責任與法定免責事由至為重要，決定了海上運送之責任分配。 本文即立足於此觀點，欲深入探討海上貨物運送人之海上貨物責任期間為何，以及法定免責事由之規定是否妥當。而因海上貨物運送涉及國際貿易，規範海上運送之海商法即具有國際化成分，受國際條約及外國立法例影響甚深，故本文首先從與海上貨物運送有關之國際條約與外國立法例開始介紹，以期對海商法之制定背景與歷史淵源，以及國際上最新的海上貨物運送法發展趨勢能先有個了解 其次，海上貨物運送人欲主張法定免責事由，僅能於海商法規定之責任期間內方能主張，於民法規定之運送責任範圍內則不能主張，因此本文接著討論海上貨物運送人之責任期間為何，最主要為海上分割說與海上單一說之爭執，本文從國際條約之規定、外國立法例、以及實務與學說見解分別介紹，而於最後闡明本文立場。 最後，討論海上貨物運送人之法定免責事由，以運送人之履行輔助人過失為中心。按海商法第六十九條第一款規定航海過失免責與第三款規定火災過失免責，均是履行輔助人之過失所造成貨物毀損、滅失，運送人得主張免責之事由，此兩款過失免責事由之制定背景、理論基礎、與現行法下之解釋為何、是否有刪除之必要，均為本文研究之議題，而海商法第六十九條第十七款為有名之除外條款，其與貨物照管義務之關聯為何，是否具有刪除之必要，本文皆會一一的討論，並對未來之展望做出結論。

During the process of carrying goods by sea, the carrier has the liability for seaworthiness of ship and the duty of care for cargoes. In order to fulfill the purpose of developing shipping industry and lightening the burden on carriers, legal exemption from liability was instituted. Therefore, liability of the carrier and legal exemption from liability are great significance to carriage of goods by sea, because they are decisive to liability allocation when it comes to maritime carriage. The idea above is fundamental throughout this thesis, where thorough analysis on defining carrier’s period of responsibility and on discussing the appropriateness of legal exemption from liability is made. Due to the fact that maritime carriage of goods involves international trade, Maritime Act, which regulates any carriage by sea, is international to a certain level; it is also impacted by international conventions and legislative examples in other countries. This thesis starts with introductory chapters of those international conventions and foreign legislative examples regarding carriage of goods by sea, giving basic understanding such as the legislative background and history of Maritime Act, accompanied by the latest development and future trends of maritime carriage around the world. If a carrier of goods by sea claims for the benefits of legal exemption from liability, it is only feasible within the period of responsibility, in line with the Maritime Act; a carrier is not allowed to claim for any exemption if the claim is raised within the period of responsibility stated in Civil Law. Therefore, the following chapters discuss definition of maritime goods carrier’s period of responsibility, along with the controversial issue of whether to apply “Carrier Taking Full Responsibility of Goods Approach” or “Carrier Sharing Responsibility of Goods with Shipowner Approach”. This thesis provides prods adapted from international conventions, foreign legislative examples, elaborating via practical experiences and academic theories respectively and concluding with position this thesis takes. Last part of the thesis discusses legal exemption from liability of the carrier of goods by sea, stressing the malpractice by performing parties. In accordance with Subsection 1 and 3, Article 69 of Maritime Act, which state the exemption from liability if any loss or damage of cargoes arising or resulting from nautical faults and of fire, the carrier is able to claim for discharge of liability when it is the performing parties who cause the problem. Legislative background, theoretical foundation, definition of these 2 law subsections under current legal framework, and the necessity to remove them are all important issues studied in this part. Moreover, with the Subsection 17, Article 69 of Maritime Act being a well-known exclusion clause, its relation with the duty of care for cargoes and whether it is necessary to remove this clause, are looked into in this part as well. This thesis sums up by predicting future prospect of the subject law.