摘要
民法第188第1項規定，僱用人應為其受僱人之侵權行為連帶負賠償責任。同條第3項並規定，僱用人於賠償損害後，對受僱人有求償權。立法理由及早期學說實務多認為，該求償權係「全額求償權」，因加害行為，究係出於受僱人，不能因僱用人代負他人行為責任，而自己免除責任。然而，此項觀點，令受僱人承擔全部責任，使受僱人陷入某種困境。蓋其將損害發生視為受僱人一人之過，要求受僱人承擔執行職務之全部風險，有忽略僱用人應承擔的風險，使僱用人得以藉由求償權不當轉嫁經營風險之虞。故學說及實務試圖透過適用或類推適用過失相抵原則、連帶債務之內部分擔、或參考國家賠償法上對公務員求償之規定以限制僱用人求償權，減輕或免除受僱人之責任。 面對此項問題，首先應釐清侵權行為法上為自己行為負責與為他人行為負責之不同，且在最高法院108年度台上字第2035號判決確立法人自己之侵權責任能力後，更有必要區別僱用人所負責任之性質，不可讓僱用人躲藏於代負責任之面紗下，藉由求償權轉嫁其應負之責任。故僱用人行為若對損害發生具有原因力，僱用人和受僱人依共同侵權行為連帶負責，乃當然之理，內部分擔下，不論係平均分擔或依責任比例分擔，並無減輕或免除受僱人責任之意，適用或類推適用過失相抵原則之見解亦同。 觀察德、日法制，藉由實務判決，建立勞工責任限制理論，立足於勞動從屬性，以危險責任、報償責任為基礎，認為有必要限制勞工之損害賠償責任。惟本文從控制理論之觀點，認為客觀上被他人使用，從事一定勞務，受其監督、服從僱用人指示之受僱人，在對於工作時間地點、勞務執行之方式、樣態不具有完全之自主權此一特色上，與勞工相同，因此為避免在損害發生後令受僱人負全部責任，反而有違反自己行為責任原則之虞，故認為不只限於勞動法上之勞工，民法上之受僱人亦應有責任限制理論適用之必要，以減輕或免除其內部之賠償責任。 基於體系正義及法評價一致之要求，本質上相同者，在制度規範上不應有不同設計。國家賠償法第2條第3項，既有賠償義務機關對於具有故意或重大過失之公務員始具求償權之設計，考量國家對公務員、私法上僱用人對受僱人之間關係、責任性質以及求償權之類似性，本文主張應賦予私法上受僱人相同之保護。故在民法上僱用人對受僱人求償時，透過適用責任限制理論之效果，不論其請求權基礎為債務不履行之損害賠償、侵權行為損害賠償或民法第188第3項，均應限於受僱人具有故意或重大過失時始得為之，且此時仍不排除過失相抵原則之適用。 責任限制理論不只適用於僱用人對受僱人之求償權，在僱用人與受僱人為連帶債務人下，其中一人受債權人免除責任或時效完成、以及慰撫金量定等關係上，亦有以責任限制理論為基礎，重新調整之必要。且為貫徹責任限制理論之理念，免除僅具一般輕過失受僱人之內部責任，在受僱人先對被害人履行賠償債務時，應肯定受僱人對僱用人逆求償權之存在。
並列摘要
An employer is liable for wrongful damage brought about by his/her/its employees within the scope of their employment unless the employer can prove that he/she/it carefully chose and controlled the employee. As the purpose of the rule is to protect the tort victim, and the employee is the one who commits the damage, the employer who paid indemnity is allowed to exercise his/her/its right of subrogation, asking this employee to shoulder all responsibility. However, it is essential to distinguish the liability for others from personal liability. If the employer and his/her/its employees both give rise to the damage, they would be considered joint tortfeasors, so they have to share the responsibility equally or in proportion according to article 280 of the Civil Code. It is unfair if employers can pass their own duty on the employees through the right of subrogation. Besides, consulting the practicing law of Germany and Japan develops a principle to restrict employers’ subrogation when the laborers infringed the third person with ordinary negligence while doing his job. This article will discuss the difference between “laborers” in labor law and “employees” in Civil Code. Try to apply this principle to the employees. Based on “control theory,” because both laborers and employees are under employers’ command, it is hard for them to refuse employers’ orders. Therefore, protecting either laborers or employees and lightening or relieving their duties is necessary. In addition, compared to article 2 of the state compensation law, only when the damage result from an act committed with intent or gross negligence on the part of the employee of the government, the compensating authority shall have the right to reimbursement from the said employee of the Government. It seems to the author that the nature of the employee of the government is the same as “employees” in Civil Code. As a result, the author suggests that providing equal protection for employees and properly restricting employers’ subrogation is a must.