純粹經濟損失之比較研究

Abstract

本論文主要在介紹歐洲、美國、臺灣的侵權行為法如何保護純粹經濟損失。其中，歐洲法章節主要介紹開放的法國、保守的德國以及務實的英國，闡述各國的侵權行為法如何規定（無論是成文法或是判例法），有何原則以及例外；並依據歐洲比較法學者的見解，將純粹經濟損失相關實務案例按照「反射損失」、「移轉損失」、「過失不實陳述」、「專業人士失職」、「運輸通道及資源受阻」等分類，進行法院見解的歸納與研究。另外，本論文在歐洲法章節的最後，介紹以整合歐洲侵權行為法為目的之「歐洲侵權行為法原則」以及「共同參考架構草案」，究竟歐洲的通說為何，可從中窺知一二。美國的侵權行為法因為是州法而非聯邦法，各州的法規及法院見解均不相同，為美國比較法研究增添難度。所幸美國法律協會於2020年在純粹經濟損失議題上有了重大進展，其編製了《侵權行為法第三整編：經濟損害責任》，其中的第一章便在完整介紹各種過失所造成的純粹經濟損失。本論文也按照該章分類，如：經濟損失原則、專業人士失職、過失不實陳述、損害原告以外第三人之人身或財產所致之純粹經濟損失（即反射損失，並包括公共危害），分節逐一論述之。

臺灣一般侵權行為法之規定源自於德國民法典，跟德國一同歸類為保守模式，因此多數學者以及傳統實務的見解均認為，不得依據民法第184條第1項前段主張純粹經濟損失之損害賠償。然而，本論文認為應該參考比較法，針對不同純粹經濟損失之類別採取不同的政策考量，例如：在沒有水閘效應疑慮的類別，應放寬限制來保護被害人之利益。在法律不備的情形，則應參考我國學者的見解，藉由擬制成民法第184條第1項前段之權利、擴張解釋民法第184條第1項後段之主觀要件、放寬特別法規該當民法第184條第2項所謂保護他人之法律、善用民法第191條之3規定等等。本論文最後以表格的方式歸納、比較各國法律在相同案例中可能得出的不同結果，並進一步分析我國實務之見解，與歐美等國家的見解相比，有何不同？在認事用法上是否有因時制宜而調整之必要？最終，參考比較法提出修法芻議，為本論文做出總結。

This dissertation primarily introduces how tort laws protect pure economic loss in Europe, the United States, and Taiwan. The chapter of the European laws focuses on France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, which takes a liberal approach, a conservative approach and a pragmatic approach, respectively. It elaborates on how tort laws (either statutory laws or case laws) in these countries regulate pure economic loss, and what the related principles and exceptions are. Following the majority view of European scholars, this chapter categorizes cases of pure economic loss into “ricochet loss,” “transferred loss,” “professional malpractice,” “negligent misrepresentation” and “interference with use of access and resources,” and analyzes and summarizes the court’s respective opinions. Additionally, it concludes by introducing the “Principles of European Tort Law” and the “Draft Common Frame of Reference,” aimed at harmonizing European tort laws, providing an insight into the prevailing view in Europe.

In the United States, since tort laws are State laws rather than federal laws, the regulations and court interpretations vary by State, adding complexity to the U.S. comparative study. Fortunately, the American Law Institute made significant progress on this topic in 2020 by publishing the Restatement of Torts (Third): Liability for Economic Harm. In particular, Chapter 1 incorporates and elaborates on the issue of “unintentional infliction of economic loss.” The chapter of the U.S. laws follows the classification in Chapter 1, discussing the “Economic Loss Rule,” “professional malpractice,” “negligent misrepresentation,” “economic loss from injury to a third person or to property not belonging to the claimant (i.e. ricochet loss, including public nuisance),” in separate sections.

As the Taiwan Civil Code models after the German Civil Code (BGB), it is not difficult to reach a consensus that Taiwan is also under a conservative regime in terms of tort liability for pure economic loss. Therefore, the majority view in Taiwan believes that pure economic loss cannot be claimed under the former part of Article 184(1) of the Taiwan Civil Code. However, this dissertation borrows the wisdom from comparative laws and takes into account different policy considerations when tackling different categories of pure economic losses. For instance, in cases where floodgate concerns are not an issue, restrictions should be relaxed to better protect the “interests” of victims. In the absence of sufficient legal provisions, this dissertation suggests following scholars’ advices by expanding the realm of “rights” under the latter part of Article 184(1), broadening the interpretation of the “fault requirement” under the latter part of Article 184(1), enlarging the scope of “special laws” under Article 184(2), and utilizing Article 191-3.

Finally, this dissertation summarizes and compares the results of various regimes, presenting them in a table. It also analyzes court practices in Taiwan, comparing them with those in European countries and the United States. This dissertation concludes by examining the need for adjustments to address emerging issues and proposing legal amendments.