Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64777
Title: | 論侵害生命權之財產上損害賠償─規範法體系定位及責任成立要件之再檢討 A Study on the Compensation for Pecuniary Loss of Wrongful Death |
Authors: | Ling-Ling Cheng 鄭聆苓 |
Advisor: | 陳忠五(Chung-Wu Chen) |
Co-Advisor: | 吳從周(Chung-Jau Wu) |
Keyword: | 間接損害,侵權行為,純粹經濟上損失,財產性損害,自甘冒險,損害,不完全性法條,請求權基礎, indirect damages,torts,economic loss,pecuniary loss,assumption of risk,damages,incomplete rule,the base of legal right, |
Publication Year : | 2012 |
Degree: | 碩士 |
Abstract: | 我國民法第一九二條第一項及第二項規定,不法侵害他人致死者,對於支出醫療及增加生活上需要之費用或殯葬費之人,亦應負損害賠償責任;又被害人對於第三人負有法定扶養義務者,加害人對於該第三人亦應負損害賠償責任,故本條項規定,成為死者以外之第三人因救助死者而支出相關法定費用,或他人因死者死亡而喪失法定扶養利益之情形,得以向侵權行為加害人請求負擔損害賠償責任之依據。本條文雖具有賦予當事人法律上權利義務地位之功能,惟其定性究屬於獨立之「請求權基礎」抑或僅為協助特定損害賠償範圍之「不完全性法條」,影響當事人訴訟上主張之實體法依據、程序法下訴訟標的之特定,更影響權利主體、訴訟客體與其中法律關係之內容,為避免積非成是,或對法律關係產生移花接木之誤解,固有細部釐清之必要。
此外,自本條項規定下間接被害人所受損害之本質觀之,應屬於「財產性損害」,又該種損害因此類事件類型之特性,因具有損害賠償範圍與內容的高度不確定性,透過定義之分析比對,固可認定為「純粹經濟上損失」之損害類型。然而,基於一般侵權責任嚴格區分「權利」與「利益」主客觀歸責要件的限制下,針對第三人所受純粹經濟上損失之損害填補,於傳統侵權責任框架下是否存在妥適救濟管道,涉及當事人權利主張可能性之重要議題,亦不無深究之必要。 基此,本文透過立法沿革之說理、法學解釋方法、採取不完全性法條立場之缺失,及其他相似條文交互比較等論證過程,分析各項討論結果,認為應肯定民法第一九二條第一項規定已具備完全性法條地位,固為間接被害人純粹經濟上損失之獨立請求權基礎,並有其特殊價值。文末更進一步解析本條項規定之主客觀構成要件要素,包含故意過失、損害結果、不法性、因果關係等歸責事由,加以細緻化剖析,俾求全面性正確理解本條項規定之內涵。 The core of this thesis is based on the discussion of the R.O.C. Civil Code §192 a. and b., since it rules out that the indirect victims of wrongful death who suffer from pecuniary damages by surviving the death victims, such as paying the medical fee, nurse curing, or even the funeral; or the descendants who lost the benefits of legally be-bred right because the death of the victim, all the alleged people are privileged to ask the perpetrator to cover their losses or damages. However, according to the traditional opinions, the rule §192 is expository and the indirect victims cannot base on rule §192 solely to claim their right unless there are other legal rules exist. Moreover, according to the separation of 'rights' and 'economic benefits' in the traditional torts law system, the different types of damages have different elements while claiming. In the case of rule §192, the damages are economic losses, thus, those kinds of damages cannot be claimed basing on the regular torts law rule §184 because the lack of intention. As the result, the classical issues of rule §192 have no chances to be claimed and lose the real meaning in the code. Since the rule §192 plays the important role for indirect victims in wrongful death to get the compensation of economic losses. In this article, the author bases on the study of code modifying reasons, the methods of legal explanation, the weakness of granting rule §192 as an expository rule, and the comparison of other similar rules, try to find the right position of rule §192 as an independent legal right for indirect victims to claim the compensation of pecuniary loss in wrongful death. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/64777 |
Fulltext Rights: | 有償授權 |
Appears in Collections: | 法律學系 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf Restricted Access | 1.25 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.