透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.223.160.61
  • 期刊

命令管制非侵權責任之本質-回應〈過失責任標準經濟分析之再省思〉

Command and Control is Not the Nature of Tort Law: A Reply to Hsu and Shaw

摘要


在侵權賠償責任的經濟分析中,行為人身體上防制損害發生能力的不同,是會影響其過失責任的認定標準。Shavell、Landes與Posner等人認為,若非基於特別阻嚇或訊息因素,行為人身體上防制損害發生的能力愈差,其過失標準應愈低,此即其愈不容易因過失負損害賠償責任。我則認為,在過失侵權責任的認定上,行為人身體上防制損害發生的能力愈差,其過失標準應愈高而非愈低,因為這種行為人一旦減少其活動量,即可減少較多的損害,從而其法律上防制損害發生的能力是較高的,雖然其身體上的損害防制能力較低。許、蕭兩位先生不贊同我的看法,為文為Shavell、Landes與Posner等人辯護。我的回應主軸是,侵權法作為私法自治之一環,必然是以行為人是否量能而為作為賠償責任的認定標準,而Shavell、Landes與Posner等人以及許、蕭兩位先生的分析基礎,則都是命令管制型的,因此與過失侵權責任的本質是相違的。我以Shavell所舉的年輕人或年老人誰應多掃雪之例說明,抽離了制度的經濟分析,是無意義的,而且易誤導政策。我再以水泥廠為例,說明污染排放權利交易、污染稅以及過失侵權賠償責任是一體的三面,其認定基礎皆是在減少污染排放量,而此與自然人因其身體上防制損害發生能力不同而導致其可容許活動量不同之分析,是相同的。最後,我強調法律的經濟分析,其分析客體的制度本質必須被掌握,否則只是黑板計算,而此是Coase-再警告我們的。

並列摘要


Shavell and Landes & Posner said that the level of due care for able-bodied injurer should be higher than that of less-able-bodied injurer. In a previous paper, I argued that contrast to their argument the level of due care for able-bodied injurer should be lower, not higher, because he enjoys higher level of activity due to his superior skill to prevent causing damage. Hsu & Shaw disagree with me. In this reply, I argue that their analyses all miss the nature of tort law. They developed a command and control model to analyze reasonable man standard in tort law, which, in legal practice and theory, is part of private ordering. As illustrated by the two examples of snow-sweeping and pollution control, they isolate the analysis from real world legal institutions. The danger of this kind of analysis is leading to blackboard calculations, nothing to do with problem-solving. And this is the trap away which Coase always warns us to stay when doing economic analysis.

參考文獻


Coase, R. H.(1988).The University of Chicago Press.
Landes, W. M., ,R. A. Posner(1987).The Economic Structure of Tort Law.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Posner, R. A.(1990).The Problems of Jurisprudence.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Shavell, S.(1987).Economic Analysis of Accident Law.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
許耕維 、蕭代基(2004)。過失責任標準經濟分析之再省思。經濟研究。40(2),181-199。

被引用紀錄


蔣侃學(2014)。論法律經濟學之方法論預設-以Coase與Posner之爭論為核心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.10987

延伸閱讀