論過失侵權行為所致之純粹經濟損失

Abstract

「純粹經濟損失」於侵權行為法中之定位向來撲朔迷離；因行為人過失侵權行為所致之純粹經濟損失是否受保障，更是困難的問題；各國立法、司法實務對此一問題處理模式皆不同；學者見解亦莫衷一是。 本論文首先論述「純粹經濟損失」此類損害之定義與特質，並以此為基礎，探究「純粹經濟損失」是否應較其他法益所受保障為低？若答案為是，其緣由究竟為何？ 就此一問題，我國最高法院自二００九年後之一系列判決，及多數學者見解，均已正確地指出：限制「過失侵權行為所致之純粹經濟損失」之賠償，係因「純粹經濟損失」之本質具不確定性、且其外觀輪廓較不明確；且於當事人間存在契約關係之情形，以契約法處理「純粹經濟損失」所生風險，較符合私法自治原則及經濟效率。 接著，本論文藉由比較德、法、英、美之實務走向及立法動態，及新近公布之歐洲侵權行為法規定，探求各國比較法走向之異同；並借鏡比較法之發展，從中尋求「過失侵權行為所致之純粹經濟損失」於我國侵權行為法未來可能之定位。 藉由前述各國比較法的發展歷程，即得以探知：無論是我國目前主流見解之「差別保障說」，亦或是新近興起之「平等保障說」皆深受上述先進國家法學發展之影響（尤其是德、法二國）；我國最高法院早期見解，似尚未意識到「純粹經濟損失」之特殊性，對於「純粹經濟損失」是否為我國民法第一八四條第一項前段之保護法益，見解並不一致；惟自九十八年度台上字第一九六一號判決之「參展品失竊案」後，我國最高法院之見解已趨於一致，明確地採取前述「差別保障說」學者之見解，認為「純粹經濟損失」並非民法第一八四條第一項前段保障之法益。 本論文主要基於法安定性、可預測性之考量，認為應以現行多數學者及實務見解所採之「差別保障說」為是，故「過失侵權行為所致之純粹經濟損失」原則上應非民法第一八四條第一項前段之保障法益；惟如於個案中，被害人所受之損害雖屬「純粹經濟損失」，但該損害無法循第一八四條第一項後段或第二項受保障時，且行為人不致承擔「範圍不確定、不成比例的責任」，且「無法合理期待被害人依契約法保障其權益」時，例外將此等「純粹經濟損失」擬制為權利，得受第一八四條第一項前段之保障，操作較為簡便，亦能周全被害人法益之保障。

'Pure economic loss' in tort law has always been in a confusing position; while the problem that 'Whether pure economic loss caused by negligence tort protected by tort law?” is more confusing. National legislations and judicial practice handle this issue in different ways; scholars have divergent views. My thesis first discusses definition and the nature of 'pure economic loss', and on this basis, to study that should 'pure economic loss' enjoy more limited protection than other interests? If the answer is yes, the reason Why? According to the verdicts of Roc supreme court after 2009 and Mainstream views has pointed out that due to the uncertain nature, vagueness contour of pure economic loss; and in the case of a contractual relationship exists between the parties, handling the risk of 'pure economic loss' with contract law, is more in line with the principle of private autonomy and economic efficiency. Then, by comparison of the judicial practice and legislative developments of Germany, France, Britain, the United States, and recently published European tort law, my thesis explores the similarities and differences between countries; and learns from the development of comparative law, seeks 'pure economic loss caused by negligence tort 'on possible future positioning of ROC tort Law. By developing countries in the course of the preceding comparative law, namely to ascertain: whether the mainstream view of the 'different protection theory ' also, or recent rise of 'equal protection theory' the advanced are deeply affected by the development of the above-mentioned national laws (in particular, Germany and France); early views of the Supreme Court, it seems that the Supreme Court has not yet aware of the special nature of 'pure economic loss'. Whether 'Pure economic loss' is protected by ROC Civil law article 184, section 1, paragraph 1, its opinion is not consistent. However, after Tai-shang 1961 of 2009, the case of the word 'theft of exhibitor goods', the opinion of the Supreme Court has been consistent, clearly taking the aforementioned 'different protection theory,' scholars view that 'pure economic loss' is not a protected interest in article 184, section 1, paragraph 1. On consideration of method stability, predictability, my opinion is that the mainstream view of the 'different protection theory' should prevail. 'Pure economic loss caused by negligence tort ” is not a protected interest under Civil law article 184, section 1, paragraph 1 Civil Law. However, under certain circumstances, if the injured pure economic cannot be protected under Civil law article 184, section 1, paragraph 2 or article 184, section 2, and the defendant would not expose the defendant to indeterminate or disproportionate liability, or parties in the plaintiff's position can not be reasonably be expected to protect themselves against the loss by contract, the pure economic loss of the plaintiff can be fiction as infringe absolute right.