勞工損害賠償責任限制之研究

Abstract

在既有的民事責任體系中，並未針對勞工執行職務引發他人損害時所生之損害賠償責任進行特別規定，則關於勞工應負擔之責任，悉依民法規定加以判斷。但是，針對現行民法之向來解釋論，多未充分考量雇主作為勞工執行職務之實質受益人所扮演的角色，以及勞工的從屬性特徵與風險承擔能力，導致勞工可能面臨過苛、不合理的損害賠償責任。 經研究後本文認為，針對勞工對雇主之損害賠償責任，應在責任成立要件上即進行限制，且應以「工具理論」作為勞工責任限制之一般性理論。若勞工行為與雇主業務間存在「業務關聯性」，且其行為「非出於故意或重大過失」，則勞工行為所造成之損害，實乃雇主利用勞工之勞動力此種生產工具時，難以避免且本應自行計算與終局承擔之固有風險，而不存在將損害轉嫁於勞工之正當性。 在承認應由雇主終局承擔勞工執行職務所生損害風險的前提下，學說所提出有關勞工對雇主行使「逆求償權」之理論，實非雇主、勞工、被害第三人間風險分配之最佳解答。依本文分析結果，在雇主對被害第三人未享有責任限制利益時，勞工對被害第三人僅負擔「補充性責任」，避免勞工負擔不必要的求償成本與風險；在雇主對被害第三人享有責任限制利益時，為避免勞工之「逆求償權」與雇主責任限制利益之衝突，應視情形使勞工得向被害第三人主張援用雇主所享有之責任限制利益。

In the existing framework of civil liability, there are no specific provisions addressing damages arising from harm caused to third parties in the course of an employee performing their duties. Accordingly, questions concerning the liability borne by employees are to be determined in accordance with the general rules of the Civil Code. However, prevailing interpretations of the current Civil Code often fail to adequately consider the role of the employer as the substantive beneficiary of the work performed by the employee, as well as the employee’s subordinate position and limited capacity to bear risks. As a result, employees may be exposed to excessively harsh or unreasonable liability for damages. This article argues that with respect to employees’ liability for damages vis-à-vis their employers, restrictions should be introduced at the stage of establishing liability itself. Furthermore, the “Instrumentality Theory” should serve as the general theoretical basis for limiting employee’s liability. Where the employee’s conduct bears a business-related connection to the employer’s operations and is not committed with intent or gross negligence, the resulting damage should be regarded as an inherent risk of the employer’s exercise of control over and utilization of the employee’s labor as a productive instrument—one which the employer ought to foresee, internalize, and ultimately bear. Under such circumstances, there is no legitimate basis for shifting the burden of damage onto the employee. Based on the premise that risks arising from the performance of duties by employees should ultimately be borne by the employer, this article contends that the theory advocating an employee’s reimbursement against the employer does not constitute the optimal solution to the allocation of risks among the employer, the employee, and third-party victims. According to the analysis presented herein, where the employer does not benefit from any limitation of liability vis-à-vis the third party, the employee shall only bear secondary liability, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation costs and risk burdens on the employee. Conversely, where the employer enjoys a limitation of liability toward the third party, in order to avoid conflicts between the employee’s reimbursement and the employer’s limitation of liability, the employee should, depending on the circumstances, be allowed to invoke such limitation of liability as a defense when facing claims from third parties.