動物占有人侵權責任之研究

Abstract

從古至今，人類與動物間總有著千絲萬縷的聯繫，無論是農耕時代提供工作服務的役畜，還是在現代作為情感寄託的寵物，動物在人類生活中始終佔據著不可或缺的地位。由於動物天生具有野性，且不若人類具備思考或控制行為的能力，倘動物占有人未能以有效且正確的方式約束其行為，將使得整體社會須共同承擔該等動物所帶來的危險。是以，為避免無辜他人受有損害卻無法填補之窘境，我國民法第190條對此設有相應之賠償規範。 民法第190條自民國18年立法後，未經任何修正。因此，隨著近代動物侵權事件的增多，實務適用時因法條文字未臻精確而產生諸多疑慮。就責任主體部分，法條僅規範「動物占有人」，未敘明是否應與物權法上之占有為相同解釋。若肯定此說，則其所指除直接占有人外，是否包含間接占有人及占有輔助人？此外，與動物具有共同生活關係之人、晶片登記人、開放性營業場所管理人、餵養流浪動物者是否屬動物占有人？又在何種情況下須負擔本條賠償責任？就保護客體部分，除權利外，是否及於純粹經濟上損失？就條文但書舉證免責部分，動物占有人應盡之「相當注意」之具體內涵為何？該注意義務若受動物品種、性格或所處場域等因素影響，是否存在具體可參之標準？ 關於前揭爭議，若單純觀察民法第190條，均無從得到解答。學術界對此相關議題之討論除教科書外，亦僅有零星幾篇文章，且多為淺顯之探討，尚無具統整性之專著。是以，實有進行全面分析與探討之必要。基此，本文以「民法第190條」為討論核心，先循法制史軌跡進行探究，再以我國實務判決作為觀察標的，透過蒐集相關判決進行整理與歸納，結合我國既有學說觀點，並參考日本法及美國法之司法實踐，提出總結與建議。

Throughout history, intricate connections have existed between humankind and animals. From livestock providing labor services in agrarian society to pets offering emotional support in modern days, it is obvious that animals hold an indispensable place in human life. Due to animals’ natural instincts and their lack of human-like cognition and controlling abilities, if possessors fail to restrain their behavior, the whole society will be unable to escape the danger posed by such animals. To prevent a situation where innocent parties can’t be compensated, Article 190 of the Civil Code in Taiwan has established regulations. Article 190 of the Civil Code has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1929. Consequently, as modern incidents of animal-related torts increase, the practical application of this article has raised numerous questions due to the lack of precision in its wording. Regarding the responsible parties, the article only specifies "animal possessors" without clarifying whether this term should be interpreted similarly to the concept of possession in property law. This raises the question of whether it includes not only direct possessors, but also indirect possessors and agents in possession. Furthermore, does it encompass individuals who live with the animal, those registered as the owner in the animal's microchip, managers of open business premises, or those who provide food for stray animals? Under what circumstances would these individuals be liable for compensation under this article? In terms of the protected objects, can both rights and pure economic loss be considered? What is the definition of "reasonable care"? If the standard of duty of care will be influenced by factors such as the species and character of animals, or the environment in which they are situated, are there specific standards that can be used as points of reference? Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Article 190 of the Civil Code doesn’t provide answers to the aforementioned questions. Moreover, there is lack of comprehensive scholarly monographs addressing this topic. Therefore, a thorough analysis is necessary. This thesis focuses on "Article 190 of the Civil Code". Firstly, it discussed the historical development of Article 190. Secondly, it gathered relevant cases as the primary subjects of study, then generalizing and summarizing the judgements. Thirdly, it organizes and integrates existing scholarly articles in Taiwan. Last but not least, it seeks to draw insights from Japanese and American law, and provide conclusions and suggestions.