我國懲罰性賠償金制度之再反省──以消費者保護法第51條為中心

The Re-evaluation of the Punitive Damages in Taiwan: Focusing on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act

林家如(Jia-Ru Lin)

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(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01233

摘要

懲罰性賠償金係在填補性損害賠償外，為懲罰、嚇阻主觀上有惡性之行為人所課與的額外金錢負擔。此概念初始並不存於我國法，而係於1980年代末，才開始從美國法引入我國民事法領域，至今已超過20年，其發展軌跡或運作實況是否有不同於美國法之處，令人好奇。是故，本文擬以比較法與實證分析兩項研究方法，分別觀察、分析與比較美國法與我國法之懲罰性賠償金制度，並省思我國在繼受他國法制時是否有須改進之處。
　　本文第二章在介紹「美國法之懲罰性賠償金制度」時，主要聚焦在該國法制能與我國進行對照或溝通之部分進行討論。美國法該制度係源自英國法，經過兩百多年的發展，雖然引發不少爭議，但至今已係一穩定存在。其制度目的功能係「懲罰」、「嚇阻」、「鼓勵私人執法」，另有少部分的州承認其具有「損害填補」的功能。
　　首先，在「適用範圍」上，多數說認為該制度僅適用於侵權行為案件，縱適用於違約案件，也係因系爭行為同時構成獨立之侵權行為。於「責任主體」部分，則有” vicarious liability”與「共犯原則」（complicity rule）的爭議。有少數法院判決限制只有直接被害人得為請求，但卻未附具有建設性之說理。另外，在被害人死亡的情況下，有超過半數的州以制定法或法院判決准許死亡之被害人得請求懲罰性賠償金。
第二，於「責任成立」部分，被害人必須受有實際損害，且行為人必須具有重大過失以上程度的惡意，懲罰性賠償金責任才能成立。
第三，在「責任範圍」部分，各州採用的「審酌因素」不盡相同，但可歸納出15項因素，其中和懲罰、嚇阻目的有關的因素為「被告行為可歸責性」、「被告之獲利」、「被告受其他賠償金或處罰的程度」，而「被告之資力」則為最具爭議之審酌因素。而由於聯邦最高法院認為懲罰性賠償金必須和填補性損害賠償維持合理的比例關係，故原告的「律師費用」是否要納入填補性損害賠償以計算比例關係，即成問題，目前美國法對之尚未形成共識。另外，多數意見認為懲罰性賠償金之請求與數額並不會因為被害人與有過失而受影響。至於懲罰性賠償金責任係連帶或單獨，則尚未有定論。
第四，1980年代末，幾則驚人高額裁決的出現，使得美國法上出現改革運動的浪潮，許多改革方案應運而生，希望能避免恣意裁決的發生。本文在此擇要介紹之，在「實體法」部分，本文介紹「最高限額」、「數額比例」，及「數額分割」三種數額限制方案。至於「程序法」部分，則是：「由法官擔任裁決者」、「分割審理程序」，及「提高證明程度」。這些改革方案雖然某程度排除高額裁決引發的負面效應，卻也產生一些理論上待決的問題。
至於第三章我國法部分，先確立我國該制度之目的機能，主要係「懲罰」、「嚇阻」。再參酌美國法上對懲罰性賠償金概念特徵的描述，歸納出四項判斷指標，並藉此過濾出我國懲罰性賠償金制度共計8項之實定法規定。
接著，回顧最高法院和臺灣高等法院歷年判決，統計實證數據，發現我國法院判決除消費者保護法第51條外，其餘的懲罰性賠償金規定適用頻率並不高；且實務判決機率不高，數額亦未達驚人之數。
由於消費者保護法第51條係最常被援用之懲罰性賠償金規定，本文遂以之為中心，針對其涉及的各項解釋論爭議，從制度目的出發，輔以實務及學說之討論，並適時參考美國法觀點，提出個人意見。本文以為，只要是因被告「故意」或「過失」違反「消費者保護法保護消費者」之規定，致「消費者」或「第三人」受有「實際損害」，該「被害人」即得依消費者保護法第51條起訴請求懲罰性賠償金。
　　在有「多數被告」之情形，應具體判斷「個別被告」之主觀可責性，以決定其是否須負懲罰性賠償金責任。至於該條所謂之「損害額」，除非法院承認「慰撫金」具有「懲罰」機能，否則應包含「非財產上損害」。「被害人與有過失」，對「請求權是否發生」與「可請求之責任範圍」，均不生影響，民法第217條不應適用於懲罰性賠償金。在數額決定上，以「被告之故意過失程度」、「被告因系爭行為之獲利」、「被告之資力」、「被告事後處理方式或態度」、「原告所受損害」，以及「被告受不同法規範制裁之程度」這六項作為「審酌因素」。
最後，在立法論部分，回到制度整體的觀點，反省該制度於我國法存在的正當性與必要性。研究結果認為該制度不應因「違反民刑分立」即被廢除，但應注意憲法「比例原則」及「一行為不二罰」原則之要求。在思考「一般化納入民法」的問題時，立法者態度應更加審慎。另外，現行的金額上限規定有所不妥，應予廢除。惟若立法者仍堅持採取金額上限規定，則建議應加入「行為人之獲利」作為計算基準的替代選擇方案。文末，本文整合前開所有討論，嘗試提出三個版本的立法建議，供立法者參考。

關鍵字

懲罰性賠償金 ； 填補性損害賠償 ； 懲罰 ； 嚇阻 ； 消費者保護

並列摘要

Punitive damages are the extra monetary burden intended to punish and deter the malicious wrongdoers.　The doctrine did not exist in Taiwan law at first. Starting from late 1980, it has been adopted in the civil law area in Taiwan for over 20 years. Today, it is curious that whether the development and application of the system in Taiwan are distinct from the one in U.S.A. Therefore, with the methods of comparative law and empirical study, this Thesis tries to observe, analyze, compare, and re-evaluate the punitive damages system in U.S.A. and in Taiwan.
Chapter two, “The Punitive Damages in U.S.A.”, focuses mainly on the parts that can be parallels between U.S.A and Taiwan. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from English law. Though triggering many controversies, the system has become a steady one in today’s U.S.A. through the 200-years up development. The functions of it are punishment, deterrence, and encouraging private prosecutors. There are a few states admit the function of compensation.
First, the majority hold that the doctrine is only applicable in torts cases. And it is applicable in contracts only if the breach of contract constitutes torts at the same time. As to the subject of legal responsibility, there is an argument relating to the rule of vicarious liability and complicity rule. There are a few courts hold that only the directly injured victim can be awarded punitive damages without any constructive reasoning. Besides, when the victim is dead, more than half of the states or the court decisions grant the decedent punitive damages.
Second, the injured party bearing actual damages, and the infringer at least being gross-negligent, then constitute the punitive damages responsibility.
Third, every state has its own jury instructions. But to sum up, there are 15 factors. Among them, the reprehensibility of the defendant, the profit of the defendant, and the degree of other punishment the defendant should bear are related to the functions of punishment and deterrence. The wealth of the defendant is the most controversial factor. Due to the Supreme Court, the punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. It is problematic that whether the attorneys’ fees should be counted into the plaintiff’s compensatory damages. Currently, it has not been decided. Moreover, most opinions see that the victim’s comparative negligence would not affect the constitution and the number of the punitive damages responsibility. It is still controversial that whether the responsibility of punitive damages should be joint or several.
Fourth, in late 1980s, several shocking verdicts triggered the waves of reforming the punitive damages system. A lot of reforming plans are proposed to avoid the occurrence of the excessive verdicts. Here the Thesis talks about some important ones. In substantial law, cap rule, ratio guidepost, and the split-recovery are the ones to limit the number of the punitive damages. In procedural law, the mostly discussed plans are judge-determined punitive damages, bifurcation, and the higher standard of proof. To some extents, these reforms provide solutions to the adverse effect of the excessive awards, but generate some theoretical problems.
Chapter three is about “The Punitive Damages in Taiwan”. This Thesis firstly confirms that the functions of our punitive damages system are punishment and deterrence. Then, this Thesis induces four characteristics of the doctrine from the description of it in American law. And with these four, this Thesis filters all the possible regulations and ascertains that there are 8 Articles concerning punitive damages.
Next, this Thesis reviews all punitive damages decisions made by the Supreme Court and the Taiwan High Court. And the empirical data shows that besides Art. 51 of the Consumer Protection Law, other punitive damages regulations are rarely in application. Besides, the probability of receiving punitive damages awards is low, and the number of the punitive damages is usually not shocking.
Since Art. 51 is the most applicable regulation, this Thesis focuses on the explanation controversies of Art. 51 of the Consumer Protection Law. In view of the system functions, this Thesis tries to provide solutions to every problem we have with the aid of legal practice, academic research, and foreign legal study. This Thesis holds that as long as the defendant intentionally or negligently violates any regulation intending to protect consumers, and causes actual harm to “the consumer” or “the third party”, the victim could file a suit and claim for punitive damages in accordance with the Art. 51 of the Consumer Protection Law.
When there are multiple defendants, this Thesis holds that we should examine the subjective reprehensibility of the defendants separately to see whether they are liable for punitive damages. As to the calculation of the amount of actual damages, unless the court admits that the Consolation Payment is a punishment, the non-pecuniary damages should be included. Moreover, the comparative negligence of the victim has nothing to do with the constitution and the scope of the punitive damages responsibility. Art. 217 of the Civil Code is not applicable in punitive damages. The Thesis finally concludes that the subjective reprehensibility of the defendant, the profit of the defendant, the finance of the defendant, the post-incident behavior and attitude, the loss and damage of the plaintiff, and the extent of other legal punishment are the criteria for deciding the amount of the punitive damages.
Lastly, in the legislative part, this Thesis turns to an integrated perspective, re-evaluates the justifiability and the necessity of the system in Taiwan law. The result of the research reveals that the system should not be abolished for the violation of “the separation of civil and criminal law”. However, it should be noted that the operation of the punitive damages has to be constitutional and conform to the “Rule of proportionality” and “Double Jeopardy”. The legislators should be more cautious when considering whether to enact a punitive damages regulation into the Civil Code. Besides, the current cap rule should be abolished to enhance the functions of the system. Nevertheless, if the legislators insist to adopt the cap rule, this Thesis suggests that “the profit of the defendant” could be an additional basis of calculation. To sum up, the Thesis integrates all the above research results, and tries to provide the legislators with three editions of legislative suggestions.

並列關鍵字

punitive damages ； compensatory damages ； punishment ； deterrence ； consumer protection

參考文獻

何建志，〈懲罰性賠償金之法理與應用－論最適賠償金額之判定〉，《台大法學論叢》，第31卷第3期，頁237-289，2002年5月。

林德瑞，〈懲罰性賠償金適用之法律爭議問題〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，110期，頁40-54，2004年7月。

詹森林，〈受僱人執行職務之侵權行為與僱用人之消保法懲罰性賠償金責任－最高法院九七年度台上字第二三一五號判決之研究〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，142期，頁53-72，2009年12月。

詹森林，〈消保法懲罰性賠償金責任之過失應否限於重大過失？－台灣高等法院高雄分院九十七年上字第八一號民事判決之評析〉，《月旦裁判時報》，4期，頁50-59，2010年8月。

謝哲勝，〈懲罰性賠償〉，《台大法學論叢》，第30卷第1期，頁113-161，2000年4月。