- 期刊
驚嚇損害事件中健康權侵害之認定標準
Criteria for finding an 'injury to the right to health' in cases regarding 'Nervous Shock (Schockschaden)'
摘要
在我國關於「驚嚇損害」，「休克損害」，「情緒悲痛」，或「第三人精神上損害」等學說討論中，對於未遭受任何自己之身體傷害，而僅生精神上痛苦或病症之被害人，多數見解認為得以該被害人之健康權受侵害為基礎，依民法第184條第1項前段及第195條第1項規定，請求財產上及非財產上之損害賠償。問題在於，須達到何種程度後，該被害人所受之精神上痛苦／損害始得認為已構成對其「健康權之侵害」，我國學說及實務見解似未提供清楚之認定標準。由於缺乏明確且一致之「健康權侵害」認定標準，則在「驚嚇損害」或「休克損害」事件中，欲主張受精神上損害而請求賠償之當事人將無所適從。有鑒於此，本文將透過分析比較英國及德國學說及實務（尤其是英國最高法院及德國聯邦法院之判決）對於此類事件中「可賠償損害」及「健康權侵害」之相關見解，釐清「健康權侵害」之認定標準及其實質內涵，認定標準內含之法理，現行標準之合理性，或其他可能影響認定標準之要素等重要問題。於釐清本議題之相關理論基礎後，本文將評述前開研究結果是否得適用於我國法院，並提出較明確且一致之「健康權侵害」認定標準，於我國法院未來處理「驚嚇損害」或「休克損害」事件時，供其參考使用。
並列摘要
In Taiwan, with regard to issues concerning 'Nervous Shock (Schockschaden)', 'Emotional Distress', 'Emotional/Psychiatric Harm Suffered by a Third Party', it is recognized in most of the literature that a claimant can demand compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage according to Article 184, Paragraph 1, the former part and Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, provided that the emotional/psychiatric distress or illness suffered by the claimant has constituted an 'injury to his/her right to health'. However, when can the emotional/psychiatric distress or illness suffered by the claimant be deemed as an 'injury to his/her right to health', has not been elucidated in the literature or in court practice. Due to the lack of clear and consistent criteria for finding an 'injury to the right to health', the prospect of success for a claimant, who brought up a suit for his/her emotional/psychiatric distress or illness, would be very uncertain. In light of this, this article would start from comparing the literature and decisions (in particular the Supreme Court decisions) made in UK and in Germany, to explore how in this kind of cases 'compensable damage/harm' or 'injury to the right to health' could be established. On the basis of this analytical comparison, this article would further examine the following issues, including the criteria for finding an 'injury to the right to health', the very essence of them, the grounds for adopting the criteria, whether or not the existent criteria should be maintained, and other factors which may influence the criteria etc. After probing the rationale pertinent to the above-mentioned issues, this article would consider whether these analyses are of relevance in Taiwan, and propose comparatively clear and consistent criteria for finding an 'injury to the right to health', which may be applied in our future court practice where a 'Nervous Shock (Schockschaden)' case appears.