請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87750
標題: | 美國聯邦侵權責任之要件與例外-以聯邦侵權行為法為中心 Requirements and Exceptions of Federal Governmental Tort Liability- centering on Federal Tort Claims Act |
作者: | 楊智翔 Chih-Hsiang Yang |
指導教授: | 林明昕 Ming-Hsin Lin |
關鍵字: | 聯邦侵權行為法,主權豁免原則,裁量例外,故意例外,軍事例外, FTCA,Sovereign Immunity,discretionary exception,intentional exception,military exception, |
出版年 : | 2023 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 美國國家責任最早繼受自英國法的主權豁免原則。認為除非國家主權自身同意,否則國家不能成為訴訟對象。而主權豁免原則從十九世紀末起,便不斷受到挑戰。從十九世紀末到二十世紀初,不斷有關於國家侵權責任的立法,一直到1946年正式立定聯邦侵權行為法。
在聯邦侵權行為法的成立要件上,就主體而言,只承認聯邦公務員或是代表聯邦政府行使職權之人所為的侵權行為。對於委外事務承攬商之責任,聯邦政府毋庸負責。就執行職務,該部法案將執行職務的定義交由事件發生地之州法民事判例決定。致使會有同樣案件事實,在不同州發生會有不同結果的情形。這在執法人事件中會造成更多問題。執行職務比附民事判例,在執法人員領域也顯得不恰當。 聯邦侵權行為法雖然承認了國家的侵權責任,然而卻又設立了許多例外可以主張主權豁免的例外條款。其例外情況多達十三種,本文宥於篇幅,介紹實務上最常使用的第2680條(a)裁量例外、(h)故意例外以及實務判決演繹出的軍事例外。裁量例外係為保障政府的裁量權,在行政機關之裁量涉及民生、政治以及社會考量時,政府對於其侵權行為得以主張主權豁免。故意例外規定公務員為若干犯罪行為時,聯邦政府得主張主權豁免。軍事例外則豁免軍人因執行勤務時所發生之侵權損害賠償責任。 如此廣泛的豁免條款,使得聯邦侵權行為法的適用大大限縮。本文認為美國的聯邦侵權行為法並不是一個很好的模仿對象。而美國的國家責任除了聯邦侵權行為法,還有許多特別領域的侵權責任以及州政府的侵權責任,這些也都值得更多的研究。 United States inherited “Sovereign Immunity Doctrine” from England law. The government cannot be sued unless the sovereign itself agreed. Sovereign immunity, however, has been challenged since the end of 19th century. From the end of 19th century to the 20th century, there were many acts regarding governmental tort. It was in 1946 that Federal Tort Claims Act was finally enacted. The subject of FTCA are federal employees and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity. The federal government is not responsible for the tortious acts committed by independent contractors. FTCA left the definition of “scope of employment” to state law and civil cases. This method leads to the fact that the similar cases would have different outcomes in different states. The problem becomes more obvious when it comes to law enforcement employees. The standard for law enforcement employees is supposed to be unified. It is not appropriate to leave the definition of “scope of employment” to state law or civil cases when it comes to law enforcement. Even though FTCA recognized the governmental tort liability, there are thirteen exceptions. Since there are too many exceptions, we only elaborate on discretionary exception, intentional tort exception and military exception developed by courts which are mostly used in practice. Discretionary exception protects government’s discretionary function. When the government exerts discretion based upon economical, political and social factors, those acts can be immune from liability. If federal employees committed those intentional crimes, the government can be immune from liability. Military exception gives the government immunity from injuries incident to military services. Those exceptions have limited the usage of FTCA to great extent. Hence, FTCA is not a good model to imitate. Nevertheless, there are still other acts concerning governmental tort liability other than FTCA such as state governmental tort liability. Those acts deserve more attentions. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87750 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202300828 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(限校園內公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 1.98 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。