國家賠償法上公共設施責任之重構

自1981年國家賠償法制定並施行以來，歷經將近四十年未有所變動與修正。隨著國家機能與人民對權益維護之認知日益增長，國家賠償案件亦隨之增加，進而造成國家財政上之負荷。近年來，由於山難、溺水事故頻傳，連帶使得求償案件激增，令公共設施之主管機關手足無措。因此，我國終於在2019年年底修正國家賠償法第3條之規定，試圖藉由本次修法解決如此窘境。然而，此番國家賠償法之修正，是否能真正解決國家賠償法上沉痾已久之爭議，似乎並不存在著完全肯定的答案。溯其根本，國家賠償法第3條之公共設施責任之所以會留下難以解決的問題，其原因係在於多數見解所主張的「無過失責任主義」，其立意或許良善，但卻讓公共設施之設置或管理機關可能負擔過於沉重之賠償責任，反而損及行政效率。因此，國家賠償法第3條之公共設施責任，是否應該將之定性為「無過失責任」，抑或是較為寬鬆之「推定過失責任」，以減輕其負擔之責任，即是本次修法的核心之一，故應相當有討論之必要。本文擬藉日本公共設施賠償責任之發展與文獻進行相關問題之考察，是以彼邦與我國之法規範相近，其於學說理論、實務判決上之開展與研析，亦較我國之研究來得更為多元與寬廣。在探討公共設施賠償責任之性質定位上，日本相關法律文獻應可提供眾多值得借鑒與反思之處。在上述前提下，本文將從公共設施賠償責任的發展歷史、責任要件等等面向當中尋找問題之所在，並試圖在眾多學說主張與實務裁判見解當中探尋較為合理之安排。最後，則會對於2019年國家賠償法第3條之修正提出個人之評析意見，並針對國家賠償法第3條是否應設置「免責事由」條款等等問題，試圖給予結論，以切合國家賠償法之立法目的，即保障人民權益與合理分配國家與人民間之責任。

關鍵字

國家賠償法；公共設施賠償責任；無過失責任；推定過失責任；免責事由

並列摘要

Since the enactment and implementation of the State Compensation Law in 1981, there have been no changes or amendments for nearly four decades. As the state's functions and the awareness of people's protection of rights and interests are increasing, state compensation cases have also increased, which in turn has caused a financial burden on the state. In recent years, due to the frequent occurrence of mountain accidents and drowning accidents, the number of claims has increased sharply, leaving the competent authorities of public facilities at a loss. Therefore, our country finally amended the provisions of Article 3 of the State Compensation Law at the end of 2019 in an attempt to resolve such a dilemma with this amendment. However, it seems that there is no completely affirmative answer to whether the amendment of the State Compensation Law can really solve the long-standing dispute in the State Compensation Law. The reason why the public facility liability in Article 3 of the State Compensation Law leaves unsolvable problems lies in the "Strict liability" advocated by most opinions. Its concept may be good, but it allows the management authority of the public facilities may bear excessively heavy liability for compensation, but may damage administrative efficiency. Therefore, whether the responsibility of public facilities in Article 3 of the State Compensation Law should be characterized as "Strict liability" or "Presumption of Negligence" to lighten its burden, which is also the core of this amendment. Therefore, it should be quite necessary for discussion. This thesis intends to study the development of Japanese public facilities compensation liability and literature to investigate related issues. Japan is similar to our country’s laws and regulations, and its development and analysis of doctrine theory and practical judgments are more diversity and breadth than our country’s research. In discussing the nature of public facilities' liability for compensation, the relevant Japanese legal documents should provide a lot of advices and reflections. Under the above premise, this thesis will look for the problem from the development history of public facilities compensation liability, responsibility requirements, etc., and try to find a more reasonable arrangement among the many doctrines and opinions of practical judges. Finally, it will provide personal comments on the amendment of Article 3 of the State Compensation Law in 2019, and will try to draw conclusions on whether the Article 3 of the State Compensation Law should have an "exemption clause" and so on. And hope to reach the purpose of legislation of State Compensation Law, which is to protect the rights and interests of the people and to reasonably allocate the responsibilities between the state and the people.