第三人與有過失之承擔

Imputed Contributory Negligence

陳芷萱(Tzu-Hsuan Chen)

指導教授 ： 詹森林

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00722

摘要

我國民法第217條規定在損害賠償法上與有過失之法律效果，除該條第1項規定被害人自身之與有過失外，同條第3項規定：「前二項之規定，於被害人之代理人或使用人與有過失者，準用之。」，亦即縱使被害人自身不成立與有過失之情事，亦可能因為同條第3項之規定，而須承擔自身以外之第三人之與有過失。
依照該項條文之文義，須該第三人為被害人之「使用人」或「代理人」時，被害人始有該項條文之適用，亦即此時被害人始須承擔該第三人之與有過失。惟該項之「使用人」以及「代理人」二者所涵蓋之範圍並非毫無爭議，本文將從與有過失承擔之理論基礎出發，試圖找尋被害人應否承擔第三人與有過失此問題之思考脈絡，希能使此問題中「第三人」之概念更加清晰。
此外，向來在直接被害人死亡之情形下，間接被害人向加害人主張損害賠償時，一般認為間接被害人須承擔直接被害人之與有過失，本文亦將進一步討論此議題。
最後綜合前述使用人、代理人以及直接被害人之類型，本文認為在承擔第三人與有過失之議題中，皆可以民法第217條第3項作為法條依據，並建議在法條中刪除「代理人」，並將「使用人」改為「保管照顧輔助人」，以更加貼近被害人承擔第三人與有過失議題中之「第三人」之意義。

關鍵字

與有過失 ； 承擔 ； 為他人行為負責 ； 保管照顧輔助人 ； 使用人 ； 代理人 ； 直接被害人

並列摘要

The legal effect of contributory negligence in law of damages is provided by Article 217 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. The paragraph 1 in this Article stipulates about the contributory negligence of the victim himself, and furthermore the paragraph 3 in the same Article regulates about when the victim should bear the third person’s contributory negligence. That is to say, although the victim himself is free from contributory negligence, in some situations it is likely to impute the third person’s negligence to him.
According to the meaning of the paragraph, the third person must be “the person performing the obligation for the injured person” or ” the agent of the injured person”. In other words, if the third person fits the element of the paragraph, the victim should take responsible of the third person’s contributory negligence. However, the coverage of the “the person performing the obligation for the injured person” and “the agent of the injured person” are not without question at all. This thesis is going to start with the theory of the imputed contributory negligence, and try to find out the context of thinking on the issue of that the victim should or should not take responsible of the third person’s contributory negligence. Hope to clarify the concept of “the third person” on this issue.
Moreover, it is generally recognized that the direct victim’s contributory negligence should be imputed to the indirect victim when the latter sues the tortfeasor. This thesis is also going to discuss this issue more deeply.
At last, combine the type aforementioned, this thesis is of the opinion that we can all base on the paragraph 3 of the Article 217 as the legal basis on the issue of the imputed contributory negligence. Besides this thesis advises to delete the “the agent of the injured person” in the paragraph, and change the “the person performing the obligation for the injured person” into “ the care assistant of the injured person” in order to get matching with the meaning of “the third person” on the issue of imputed contributory negligence.

並列關鍵字

contributory negligence ； comparative negligence ； impute ； care assistant ； agent

參考文獻

林誠二(2003)。〈被害人之代理人及使用人與有過失之適用－兼評最高法院九十一年度台上字第一四三三號民事判決〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，46期，頁73-83。

林宗穎(2009)。《被害人與有過失之研究》。臺北：臺灣大學。

陳秋君(2008)。《論侵害身分法益之民事責任》。臺北：臺灣大學。

王澤鑑(2004)。〈間接被害人之損害賠償請求權及與有過失原則之適用〉，收於：國立臺灣大學法學系法學叢書編輯委員會(編)，《民法學說與判例研究(一)》，頁387-393。臺北：王慕華。

王澤鑑(2006)。〈財產上損害賠償(一)人身損害〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，129期，頁161-178。