摘要
本研究旨在針對民法第188條中僱用人代為替他人負責的規定提出重新審視。研究方法採取用文獻分析法及案例分析法。目前的研究結論發現：司法實務以「保護交易安全」為理由，重視被害人或第三方的信賴應受到保護，惟本研究則指出，在法律實務中，應謹慎權衡「保護交易安全」和「被害人的信賴保護」，以確保法律的公平公正適用。侵權行為的歸責旨在彌補受害人的損失，同時明確損害賠償責任的歸屬，僱用人的連帶賠償責任宜同時考慮了受害人與僱用人的權責，目前的作法並沒有辦法完全預防被害。在「媽媽嘴」事件中，強調僱用人對行為人行為的影響及指揮監督權。托嬰致死案中，法院強調了僱用人對受僱人的求償權。東華大學火燒果子狸案中，法院認定了大學為行為人的僱用人，突顯了對受僱人的監督責任。依據研究結論，本研究提出研究建議以對。
並列摘要
The purpose of this study is to re-examine the provision in Article 188 of the Civil Code that requires a person to be held responsible for others. The research methods adopt literature analysis and case analysis. The current research conclusions find that: In judicial practice, "protecting transaction security" is often used as a reason to emphasize that the trust of victims or third parties should be protected. However, this study points out that in legal practice, "protecting transaction security" should be carefully weighed and "victims' trust protection" to ensure fair and just application of the law. The attribution of liability for torts aims to compensate for the victim’s losses and at the same time clarify the attribution of liability for damages. The joint and several liability of the employer should take into account the rights and responsibilities of the victim and the employer at the same time. The current practice cannot completely prevent it. was killed. In the "Mama's Mouth" incident, the employer's influence and command and supervision power on the perpetrator's behavior were emphasized. In the infant care death case, the court emphasized the employer’s right to claim compensation against the employee. In the Donghua University burning case, the court identified the university as the employer of the perpetrator, highlighting its supervisory responsibility for the employee. Based on the research conclusion, this study puts forward research suggestions to address.