請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87750
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林明昕 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Ming-Hsin Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 楊智翔 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Chih-Hsiang Yang | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-19T16:16:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-07-19 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-05-22 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
一、書籍 王和雄,《赴日本、美國研究國家賠償法報告》,1982年,法務部刊行。 城仲模,《行政法之基礎理論》,1988年五版,三民出版。 曹競輝,《公有公共設施設置及管理之欠缺與國家賠償責任之研究》,1983年,法務部刊行。 黃謙恩,《國家賠償法論》,1980年7月1日初版,自版。 葉百修,《國家賠償之理論與實務》,2012年9月四版,元照出版。 董保城,《國家責任法》,2002年,神州出版。 廖義男,《國家賠償法》,1996年增訂版五刷,自版。 劉春堂,《國家賠償法》,2015年修訂三版,三民出版。 二、期刊論文 王和雄(1984),〈中美兩國國家賠償法之比較〉,《法律評論》,50卷1期,頁8-15。 林佩菁(2020),〈檢察官追訴職務之賠償責任-借鏡美國法制實務談國家賠償法第13條〉,《檢察新論》,27期,頁269-282。 宮文祥(2020),〈初探美國行政法之發展—從傳統到現今行政之脈絡檢索〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,406期,頁141-160。 張明珠(1988),〈美國聯邦侵權賠償法摘譯〉,《法學叢刊》,33卷4期,頁154-159。 張祐齊、張榕容(2011),〈國家賠償事件對公務員行使求償權制度之分析-以台北縣案為例〉,《致理法學》,10期,頁25-62。 陳清秀(2007),〈國家賠償實務之研討(上)〉,《月旦法學雜誌》第141期,頁171-207。 陸樹槐(1961),〈美國國家對於公務員侵權行為的賠償責任〉,《法律評論》,27卷6期,頁10-11。 陳聰富(2010),〈美國冤獄賠償法制〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,27期,頁62-74。 黃謙恩(1979),〈國家賠償法的理論與實際-法國國家賠償法實例〉,《律師通訊》,5期,頁5-6。 黃謙恩(1980),〈國家賠償的理論與實際-美國國家賠償法實例〉,《律師通訊》,9期,頁11。 黃謙恩(1980),〈國家賠償法的理論與實際-德國國家賠償法實例〉,《律師通訊》,15期,頁5-7。 黃謙恩(1980),〈國家賠償法的理論與實際-奧地利國家賠償法實例〉,《律師通訊》,16期,頁10-11。 楊崇森(2013),〈美國侵權行為法之理論與運用〉,《軍法專刊》,59卷6期,頁1-51。 楊智傑(2017),〈國家賠償之構成要件及審級制度修正方向〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,322期,頁67-78。 三、學位論文 李明海(2022),〈山難救援及國家賠償責任之研究〉,逢甲大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。 張祐齊(2011),〈國家賠償事件中國家向公務員行使求償權之研究〉,私立天主教輔仁大學法律研究所碩士論文。 葉百修(1977),〈公務員不法行為所生之國家賠償責任〉,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 貳、英文文獻 一、書籍 Paul Figley, A Guide to the Federal Tort Claims Act (1st ed. 2012). 二、期刊 Axelrad, J. (2000). Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Claims: Better Than Third-Party Adr for Resolving Federal Tort Claims. Administrative Law Review, 52(4), 1331-1344. Baer, H. R. (1948). Suing Uncle Sam in Tort-A Review of the Federal Tort Claims Act and Reported Decisions to Date. North Carolina Law Review, 26(2), 119-138. Beck, L. (2014). Governmental Immunity under the Suits in Admiralty Act, the Public Vessels Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 45(4), 445-478. Boger, J., Gitenstein, M., & Verkuil, P. R. (1975). Federal Tort Claims Act Intentional Torts Amendment: An Interpretative Analysis, The. NCL Rev., 54, 497-543. Bruno, J. R. (2012). Immunity for Discretionary Functions: Proposal to Amend the Federal Tort Claims Act. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 49(2), 411-450. Carpenter, J. L. (2002). Latchum v. United States: the Ninth Circuit's Four-Factor Approach to the Feres Doctrine. University of Hawaii Law Review, 25(1), 231-252. Celebrezze, F. D., & Hull, K. B. (1983). The Rise and Fall of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio. Clev. St. L. Rev., 32, 367. Chemerinsky, E. (2001). Against Sovereign Immunity. Stanford Law Review, 1201-1224. Cobey, J. A. (1964). The New California Governmental Tort Liability Statutes. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 1(1), 16-27. Cohen, D. (2018). Not Fully Discretionary: Incorporating Factor-Based Standard into the FTCA's Discretionary Function Exception. Northwestern University Law Review, 112(4), 879-904. Cunningham, P. (1978). Sovereign Immunity in Georgia. Emory Law Journal, 27(3), 717-754. Custin, R. E., Ondatje, J., & Kelly, D. (2016). Is It Time to Revisit the Feres Doctrine: The Disparate Treatment of Active Duty Military Personnel under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Journal of Law, Business & Ethics, 22, 1-8. de Jonge, K. (1988). Recovery under the Federal Tort Claims Act for Government Negligence Which Leads to an Intentional Tort by Government Employee. Arizona Law Review, 30(3), 497-514. Figley, P. (2011). Ethical Intersection & the Federal Tort Claims Act: An Approach for Government Attorneys. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 8(3), 347-374. Figley, P. F., & Tidmarsh, J. (2009). The Appropriations Power and Sovereign Immunity. Michigan Law Review, 107(7), 1207-1268. Fishback, D. S. (2011). The Federal Tort Claims Act Is a Very Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity So Long as Agencies Follow Their Own Rules and Do Not Simply Ignore Problems. United States Attorneys' Bulletin, 59(1), 16-30. Fishback, D. S., & Killefer, G. (1988). The Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act: Dalehite to Varig to Berkovitz. Idaho Law Review, 25(2), 291-328. Frederick, M. P. (1990). Scope of Employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Attempts to Expand the Limits. Air Force Law Review, 33, 69-96. Fuller, D. W. (2011). Intentional Torts and Other Exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 8(3), 375-397. Gershanow, I., & Morton, F. (2013). Federal Tort Claim Act--A Further Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. St. John's Law Review, 22(1), 21. Gerwig, R. (1954). Scope of Employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Tennessee Law Review, 23(4), 370-384. Godwin, C. (2020). The Feres doctrine: How Courts Use Federal Service to Shield the Government from Tort Liability. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 43(2), 417-436. Goldman, B. R. (1992). Can the King do no Wrong--A New Look at the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Georgia Law Review, 26(3), 837-860. Gottlies, I. M. (1946). Federal Tort Claims Act--a Statutory Interpretation. Georgetown Law Journal 35(1), 1-67. Hackman, A. M. (1997). The Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act: How Much Is Enough. Campbell Law Review, 19(2), 411-446. Harris, J. H. (1962). The Loaned Servant Doctrine. Tennessee Law Review, 29(3), 448-459. Herzog, P. (1958). Liability of the State of New York for Purely Governmental Functions. Syracuse L. Rev., 10, 30. Hink, H. R., & Schutter, D. C. (1966). Some Thoughts on the American Law of Governmental Tort Liability. Rutgers Law Review, 20(4), 710-755. Jackson, V. C. (2003). Suing the Federal Government: Sovereignty, Immunity, and Judicial Independence. George Washington International Law Review, 35(3), 521-610. Jaffe, L. L. (1963). Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity. Harvard Law Review 77(1), 1-39. Krent, H. J. (1991). Preserving Discretion Without Sacrificing Deterrence: Federal Governmental Liability in Tort. UCLA Law Review, 38(4), 871-916. Levine, J. R. (2000). The Federal Tort Claims Act: Proposal for Institutional Reform. Columbia Law Review, 100(6), 1538-1571. Lewis, E. M. (2019). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview. Livingston, J. L. (1969). Federal Tort Claims Liability--Who are United States Employees. Military Law Review, 46, 99-126. McMahan, J. L., & Vollstedt, M. (2011). Researching the Legislative History of the Federal Tort Claims act. United States Attorneys' Bulletin, 59(1), 52-57. Moore, K. A. (1994). The Third Circuit Expands the Government Contractor Defense to Include Nonmilitary Contractors. Washington University Law Quarterly, 72(3). Myers, S. P. (1970). Limitations and Exceptions under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Gonzaga Law Review, 5(2), 175-189. Nelson, S. L. (2009). The King's Wrongs and the Federal District Courts: Understanding the Discretionary Function Exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act. South Texas Law Review, 51(2), 259-306. Niles, M. C. (2002). Nothing But Mischief: The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Scope of Discretionary Immunity. Administrative Law Review, 54(4), 1275-1354. Orgill, M. S., & Toren, B. M. (1985). Sovereign Immunity and the Discretionary Function Exception of the Alaska Tort Claims Act. Alaska L. Rev., 2, 99. Peterson, B. A., & Van Der Weide, M. E. (1997). Susceptible to Faulty Analysis: United States v. Gaubert and the Resurrection of Federal Sovereign Immunity. Notre Dame Law Review, 72(2), 447-502. Pfander, J. E., & Hunt, J. L. (2010). Public Wrongs and Private Bills: Indemnification and Government Accountability in the Early Republic. New York University Law Review, 85(6), 1862-1939. Plave, M. (1985). United states v. Varig airlines: The Supreme Court Narrows the Scope of Government Liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 51(1), 197-242. Pugh, G. W. (1953). Historical Approach to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Louisiana Law Review, 13(3), 476-494. Randall, S. (2002). Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History. Nebraska Law Review, 81(1), 1-114. Richards, J. W. (1961). Torts: Abolition of Sovereign Immunity in Washington. Washington Law Review, 36(3), 312. Rosky, D. (2003). Respondeat Inferior: Determining the United States' Liability for the Intentional Torts of Federal Law Enforcement Officials. U.C. Davis Law Review, 36(4), 895-966. Seamon, R. (1997). Causation and the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. U.C. Davis Law Review, 30(3), 691-784. Sisk, G. C. (2011). Official Wrongdoing and the Civil Liability of the Federal Government and Officers. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 8(3), 295-323. Sisk, G. C. (2019). Holding the Federal Government Accountable for Sexual Assault. Iowa Law Review, 104(2), 731-792. Sisk, G. C. (2019). When Is the United States Liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the Intentional Torts of Law Enforcement Officers Millbrook v. United States (11-10362). Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, 40(5), 188-190. Snyder, J. M. (2000). The Requirement of Scope of Employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Where is the Line Scrutinizing Primeaux v. United States. Creighton Law Review, 33(2), 465-506. Stephens, D. L., & Harnetiaux, B. P. (2006). The Value of Government Tort Liability: Washington State's Journey from Immunity to Accountability. Seattle UL Rev., 30, 35. Svendsen, C. L. (2022). Deficiencies in the Federal Tort Claims Act "Law Enforcement Proviso" and the Need for Reform. Iowa Law Review, 107(4), 1857-1901. Tardif, M., & McKenna, R. (2005). Washington State's 45-year Experiment in Governmental Liability. Seattle University Law Review, 29(1), 1-62. Verkuil, P. R. (1972). Immunity or Responsibility for Unconstitutional Conduct: the Aftermath of Jackson State and Kent State. North Carolina Law Review, 50(3), 548-611. Wang, E. (2020). Tortious Constructions: Holding Federal Law Enforcement Accountable by Applying the FTCA's Law Enforcement Proviso over the Discretionary Function Exception. New York University Law Review, 95(6), 1943-1996. Weber, R. (1992). Scope of Employment Redefined: Holding Employers Vicariously Liable for Sexual Assaults Committed by Their Employees. Minnesota Law Review, 76(6), 1513-1542. West, J. A. (1967). Claims Against the State of Ohio: the Need for Reform. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 36(2), 239-257. Zillman, D. N. (1995). Protecting Discretion: Judicial Interpretation of the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Me. L. Rev., 47, 365-388. Zillman, D. N. (1989). Congress, Courts and Government Tort Liability: Reflections on the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Utah Law Review, 1989(3), 687-740. Zolensky, D. M. (1981). Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act: Government Liability for the Negligent Failure to Prevent an Assault and Battery by Federal Employee. Georgetown Law Journal, 69(3), 803-832. 三、網路資料 Connecticut Law Tribune Editorial Board (2020), Denial of Malpractice Claims From Service Members Must End, in: https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2020/01/17/denial-of-malpractice-claims-from-service-members-must-end/。(最後瀏覽日:5/11/2023) | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87750 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 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。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-07-19T16:16:46Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-07-19T16:16:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 詳目
第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 壹、研究動機 1 貳、研究目的 2 第二節 研究範圍與架構 2 壹、研究範圍 3 貳、研究架構 3 第二章 美國聯邦政府侵權責任源流 4 第一節 主權豁免原則 4 第二節 立法沿革 9 第三節 聯邦侵權行為法條文 14 壹、基本規定 14 一、構成要件 14 二、程序相關規定 18 貳、例外情形 19 第四節 州法舉隅 22 第五節 小結 26 第三章 聯邦侵權行為之要件 28 第一節 概說 28 第二節 聯邦僱員之身分 28 壹、聯邦僱員 28 貳、聯邦僱員與獨立承攬商 30 一、 概說30 二、聯邦最高法院判決 32 三、州法與獨立承包商抗辯37 第三節 代表聯邦政府行使職權之人 41 壹、租借僱員原則 41 一、概說 41 二、早期案例 42 貳、雙重身份 44 參、政府功能與財產功能 45 肆、須否指明特定公務員 46 伍、彙總 47 第四節 職務範圍 48 壹、概說 48 貳、常見類型 50 一、交通案件 50 (一)公務車案件 50 (二)駕駛私人車輛 53 二、醫療相關案件 57 三、違法事件 60 (一)執法事件 60 (二)非法事件 61 第五節 小結76 第四章 例外情形 78 第一節 裁量例外 79 壹、立法沿革 79 貳、聯邦最高法院實務 81 一、Dalehite v. United States 81 二、Indian Towing Co. v. United States 83 三、United States v. Varig Airlines 86 四、Berkovitz v. United States 88 五、United States v. Gaubert 91 參、下級法院實務見解 94 一、技術事項案件 95 二、安全告示相關案件 98 肆、彙總 106 第二節 軍事例外 108 壹、聯邦最高法院見解 108 貳、上訴巡迴法院適用 112 第三節 故意例外 115 壹、立法沿革 115 貳、故意行為與監督過失之競合 116 一、早期司法實務 116 二、聯邦最高法院見解 121 三、後續見解 123 參、執法人員條款 126 一、執法人員身分 129 二、執法人員之行為範圍 130 三、裁量例外與執法人員條款之競合 135 (一)執法人員條款優先於裁量例外 136 (二)二者不互斥 137 (三)裁量例外優先於執法人員條款 138 第四節 小結 139 第五章 結論:兼論對臺灣國家賠償法之省思 141 參考文獻 145 附錄 美國聯邦侵權行為法條文 152 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 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 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Requirements and Exceptions of Federal Governmental Tort Liability- centering on Federal Tort Claims Act | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 程明修;高仁川 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Ming-Shiou Cherng;Ren-Chuan Kao | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 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, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | FTCA,Sovereign Immunity,discretionary exception,intentional exception,military exception, | en |
dc.relation.page | 159 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300828 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-05-22 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
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。