論消費者保護法之服務責任－以服務欠缺安全性為中心

Thesis on Service Liability in Consumer Protection Law－Focusing on Defect of Service

黃園舒(Yuan-Shu Huang)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700968

摘要

在台灣社會中，服務侵害消費者或第三人之人身或財產完整性之新聞時有所聞，其中，尤以發生於2015年6月27日晚間之八仙粉塵爆炸事件，最令人們矚目與震撼，該事件亦為近10年來死傷人數最多的意外事故。惟不論眾多不幸意外事故之原因事實如何千差萬別，相同的均是留下一群突然遭逢意外事故，身心及經濟上受創嚴重的被害人。他們的弱勢處境於消費者保護法施行迄今已逾20年之今日，並未獲得顯著之改善，每當重大意外事故發生，仰賴善心捐款或是訴諸國家賠償的情形依舊屢見不鮮。是以，本論文以消費者保護法服務責任為題，聚焦於探討服務欠缺安全性之概念及認定。
服務無過失責任之規定，固為比較法上罕見之立法例，亦引發諸多在立法論層次上之質疑與批評，然基於商品與服務性質上之差異，不足以作為區別對待之正當理由、傳統契約責任對於接受服務之被害人仍有保護不足之處，更重要的是，實現危險之分配正義，以確保被害人人身或財產安全性之立法目的應予貫徹，故在解釋、適用服務責任相關規定時，應緊扣無過失責任之規範脈絡，以朝向改善被害人弱勢法律地位之方向邁進。至於在加強保護被害人人身及財產完整性之同時，如何達到合理限制企業經營者責任之目標，本文認為回歸服務責任之構成要件，妥善加以解釋與操作，依構成要件所負載之規範功能，已經足以劃定消費者保護之合理界線。
其次，本文於第四章對台灣實務案例進行觀察，指出過失概念的客觀化以及服務之特性，導致服務安全性欠缺與過失概念混淆不清。然而，若將向來習以為常之企業經營者觀察角度下的專業者水準，改為消費者觀察角度下的外行人水準，以判斷服務是否欠缺一般消費大眾通常可合理期待之安全性，且對服務進行整體性的觀察與評價，避免切割不同原因事實分別究責，並貫徹安全性欠缺為客觀歸責事由，無須考量應負責任者於行為時之個人特殊情事，應得釐清服務安全性欠缺與過失之差異。此外，在判斷安全性欠缺時，應將消費者保護法施行細則第5條規範之考量因素綜合判斷，於解釋、適用時，均應以消費者之安全標準為依歸。
本文期待我們能將原先投注於加害人之目光，轉移至弱勢之被害人身上，以一般消費大眾之觀點，作為安全性是否欠缺的判斷標準，擺脫服務安全性欠缺與過失混淆不清之泥淖，貫徹消費者保護法服務責任為無過失責任之精神，試圖改善被害人弱勢之法律地位，使他們能在遭逢不幸意外事故後，在最短的時間內，以最簡明、經濟的方式，獲得最充分、確實的損害賠償。

關鍵字

消費者保護法 ； 安全性欠缺 ； 過失責任 ； 無過失責任 ； 消費者期待 ； 服務責任

並列摘要

In Taiwan society, it may occasionally to hear that someone or their property have been injured and damaged by personal services. The most terrifying incident was Ba Xian dust explosion happened on June 27, 2015, with the largest number of casualties in the past ten years. Although there are many different causes and reasons for the unfortunate incidents, the common fact is that they left a group of victims after sudden incidents that have been forced to face physical, psychological and economic damage. Their disadvantaged situation has not been significantly improved for more than 20 years since the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act; whenever major accidents occurred, the victims can only rely on the goodwill donation from the society or resort to state compensation. In this regard, this paper intends to discuss on the service responsibility based on the Consumer Protection Law with a focus on the concept and recognition of "defect of service".
The regulation for non-negligence liability of the service, which is rare in legislation comparatively, has raised many questions and criticisms at the legislative level. However, the difference in goods and services is not justified for discriminatory treatment, and the traditional contractual obligations are inadequate for the victims of the service. More importantly, realize the distribution of justice, to ensure that legislation for the victim's personal or property safety should be implemented and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the application of liability should be closely linked to the context of non-negligence liability to "improve the victim's disadvantaged position". As for how to achieve the goal of reasonable restrictions on the responsibility of the enterprise, this paper argues that the constituent elements of service responsibility should be properly interpreted and operated, and the normative function will be sufficient to define the reasonable boundaries of consumer protection.
In Chapter 4 of this paper, we observe the cases in Taiwan and point out the objectivity of the concept of negligence and the characteristics of the service, which leads to the defect of service and confusion in the concept of negligence. However, if the level of professionalism from the business operator’s point of view is changed to the consumer, determine the standard of the reasonably expected safety for the general public with overall observation and evaluation of the service, avoid separation of responsibilities for different reasons, and define the defect of safety as attributable liability, then distinction between defect of safety and negligence can be made with objectivity regardless of the individual's behaviors on the occasion. Besides, the judgment of the defect of safety should be made in accordance with Article 5 of the Enforcement Rules of Consumers Protection Law, based on assessment of the safety standard expected by the consumers.
In this paper we look forward to casting the eye on the victims instead of the doer of service. And we should judge the normal consumer's expectation for safety with the viewpoint of the public, focusing on the defect of safety, and discard confusion of the defect of service and negligence, to implement the concept of faultless liability for service as depicted in the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, in order to improve the legal status of the victims, ensure that the victims can be adequately indemnified for their damages with most concise, economic and accurate methods in the shortest possible time.

並列關鍵字

Consumer Protection Law ； defect ； negligence liability ； strict liability ； expectation of consumer ； Service Liability

參考文獻

 陳忠五（2011），〈在餐廳滑倒受傷與服務欠缺安全性─最高法院100年度台上字第104號判決評釋〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，183期

最高法院104年台上2328號判決【海水浴場溺斃案】

最高法院104年台上1364號判決【林口農會電梯墜落案】

最高法院104年台上172號判決 【速食店紅茶燙傷案】 51、111

最高法院104年台上358號判決 【長灘島浮潛溺水案】 56