論結構計算疏失建築師之連帶責任

Abstract

論結構計算疏失建築師之連帶責任 建築法第 13 條第1項及建築師法第19條均明訂：「有關建築物結構及設備等專業工程部分，除五層以下非供公眾使用之建築物外，應由承辦建築師交由依法登記開業之專業工業技師負責辦理，建築師並負連帶責任。」前揭建築師並負「連帶責任」之責任性質與責任範圍，學說與實務上有不同見解。本文探討2020年4月30日發生之「平鎮文化公園地下停車場坍塌案」，因結構技師之結構計算疏失造成損害時，依前揭規定，建築師應否並負「連帶責任」？ 首先探討建築師連帶責任之起源，有關建築法第 13 條第1項及建築師法第19條之立法旨意，以及學說與實務上之見解。分析建築師連帶責任之範圍，是否包含行政責任、刑事責任、民事責任？接著探討平鎮案例中結構技師與建築師之法律關係： 一、結構技師是否為建築師之使用人？ 以民法第224條為中心，就學說與實務上之見解，分析使用人是否以受債務人「指揮或監督」者為必要，以及該條之「同一責任」性質，係屬「過失責任」抑或屬「法定無過失責任」？本文研究結果，民法第224條所謂「使用人」之定義，應以受債務人指揮或監督為必要，而該條所謂「同一責任」，應為使用人「過失責任」之擴大化，而非「法定無過失責任」。因結構技師執行業務有其專業性與獨立性，且結構技師執行簽證業務並不受建築師之指揮或監督，是以，結構技師非為建築師之使用人，建築師並無須就結構技師之計算疏失負連帶責任。 二、建築師與結構技師間之契約性質？ 以民法第529條為中心，探討起造人（交通局）與建築師間設計監造契約之性質，應為委任契約、承攬契約、混合契約抑或聯立契約？再研究建築師與結構技師間是否為合法之複委任關係？本文研究結果，起造人（交通局）與建築師間設計監造契約之性質，應為兼具委任與承攬性質之混合契約，依民法第529條規定應適用關於委任之規定。而結構技師與建築師間屬合法之複委任關係，建築師依民法第538條第2項規定，應就結構技師之選任，及對其所為之指示負責。 最後本文針對「避免結構計算疏失｣提出建議：一、應改善建造執照審查機制以避免結構計算疏失：目前桃園市政府之公共工程有結構委外審查機制，但占大多數之私人案件，卻無任何把關建築物結構安全之有效機制。二、應開放建造執照協審市場，以建立「結構協審」機制：目前由單一民間團體獨占協審市場，建議政府應該採多元及開放之態度，讓結構專業技師參與建造執照協審，始能有效的避免結構計算疏失再次發生。

Joint Liability of Architects for Structural Engineer’s Calculation Errors Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Building Act and Article 19 of the Architects Act both stipulate: "For the professional engineering aspects of building structures and equipment, except for buildings below five stories not intended for public use, they shall be handled by professional industrial engineers registered and engaged in accordance with the law, as designated by the supervising architect, who shall bear joint liability." There are differing interpretations in doctrine and practice regarding the nature and scope of the "joint liability" borne by architects. This paper explores the "Pingzhen Cultural Park Underground Parking Lot Collapse Case" that occurred on April 30, 2020, and whether the architect should bear "joint liability" when damage occurs due to structural calculation errors by the structural engineer, as per the aforementioned provisions. First, let's delve into the origin of architects' joint liability, examining the legislative intent of Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Building Act and Article 19 of the Architects Act, as well as the interpretations in doctrine and practice. We'll analyze the scope of architects' joint liability, including whether it encompasses administrative, criminal, and civil liabilities. Then, we'll discuss the legal relationship between the structural engineer and the architect in the Pingzhen case. 1. Is the structural engineer considered an employee of the architect? Centered around Article 224 of the Civil Code, and considering interpretations in doctrine and practice, this examines whether it is necessary for an employer to "direct or supervise" the debtor, and whether the nature of "joint liability" under this article falls under "liability for fault" or "statutory liability without fault." The research concludes that the definition of "employer" in Article 224 of the Civil Code requires direction or supervision by the debtor, and the "joint liability" referred to in this article should be understood as an expansion of "liability for fault" rather than "statutory liability without fault." Since structural engineers perform their duties independently and professionally, and their certification work is not directed or supervised by architects, structural engineers are not considered employees of architects, and architects are not required to bear joint liability for the structural engineer's calculation errors. 2. The nature of the contract between the architect and the structural engineer? Centered around Article 529 of the Civil Code, this discusses the nature of the design supervision contract between the principal (Transportation Bureau) and the architect, whether it should be considered a commission contract, a contract for services, a hybrid contract, or a mixed contract. It further examines whether the relationship between the architect and the structural engineer constitutes a legitimate joint commissioning arrangement. The research concludes that the design supervision contract between the principal (Transportation Bureau) and the architect should be considered a hybrid contract combining elements of commission and service contracts, and therefore, the provisions regarding commission contracts under Article 529 of the Civil Code should apply. Additionally, the relationship between the structural engineer and the architect constitutes a legal joint commissioning arrangement. Under Article 538, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, the architect is responsible for the selection of the structural engineer and for providing instructions to them. Finally, this article proposes suggestions for "preventing structural calculation errors": 1. Improving the construction permit review mechanism to prevent structural calculation errors: Currently, the Taoyuan City Government has an outsourcing mechanism for public works structural reviews, but the majority of private projects lack an effective mechanism to ensure the structural safety of buildings. 2. Opening up the construction permit review market to establish a "structural review" mechanism: Currently dominated by a single private organization, it is suggested that the government adopt a diverse and open approach, allowing structural engineering professionals to participate in construction permit reviews. Only then can structural calculation errors be effectively prevented from occurring again.