我國貨櫃集散站經營業貨損賠償責任及其責任保險之研究

今日海洋運輸中，貨櫃化運輸已成為主流。就海運貨櫃貨物之整體運送過程而言，貨櫃集散站扮演運輸中繼站之角色，具有舉足輕重之地位。然而，我國未針對貨櫃集散站設立專門私法加以規範，導致其責任體制並不明確，造成訟累不斷，相關案件久懸延宕。又，目前貨櫃集散站經營業多藉投保之方式，轉嫁其貨損賠償責任風險。因此，實有針對貨櫃集散站經營業之責任體制及其責任保險予以探討之必要。本研究使用實務調查法、文獻回顧法、判決回顧、保險單分析法、歸納法、比較法等方法。首先，調查我國貨櫃集散站現況及其作業情形，探求產生貨損之可能情形。其次，辨明貨櫃集散站所屬之法律概念，並歸納相關國際公約之規定與外國司法實務之見解，藉此了解其責任基礎之演變。再者，自我國歷年裁判中，歸納貨櫃集散站實際受有之責任體制，並就其中若干爭議加以探討。最後，分析承保貨櫃集散站貨損責任風險之保險單，以利於貨櫃集散站經營業者於選擇上之參考。本研究發現，貨櫃集散站屬獨立契約人，在國際公約上有適用同海上運送人之責任基礎之趨勢。英美司法實務認為，在達成一定法理與記載方式之前提下，可藉由喜馬拉雅條款使獨立契約人適用海上運送人之責任基礎，惟我國尚無相關之判決。我國司法實務將貨櫃集散站經營業視為倉庫業，並依所在地理位置區分其責任體制，且見有將貨櫃集散站服務契約視為第三人利益契約之判決，惟前述見解均有可議之處。另，貨櫃集散站經營業於協商責任保險契約時，應特別注意除外不保事項之約定，及契約中關於爭議產生時，準據法與裁判或仲裁約定之效力。此外，本文認為我國應針對貨櫃集散站制定專門法規，以做為現存貨損賠償責任問題的根本解決之道。

關鍵字

貨櫃集散站；責任；責任保險

並列摘要

Containerization has become the main stream of marine transportation today. CFS (Container Freight Station) is playing an important role in the whole transshipment process of marine containerization transportation. However, there is no specialized private law for CFS in Taiwan, which has caused the liability of CFS operator indefinite and much legal dispute. Moreover, CFS operators always transfer the risk of cargo damage liability by application of insurance now. As a result, this study aims to explore liability system and liability insurance of CFS in Taiwan. The methods adopted by this study are practice survey, literature review, legal cases review, insurance policy analysis, inductive method, and comparative method. The process of this study is explained as follow: First, in order to clarify the possible scenario that causes cargo damage, the researchers investigate the present state and operation of CFS. Second, in order to illustrate the evolution of liability, the researchers define the legal position of CFS and summarize the related regulations of international convention and foreign legal cases. Third, through past judgments and rulings, the researchers concluded a practical system of CFS operator’s liability and probed into several existing issues. At last, the researchers analyzed the content of CFS liability insurance policy for providing suggestions to CFS operators. This study finds that CFS is categorized as independent contractor; and under the relevant international conventions, there is a trend to address the marine carrier’s liability to CFS operator. In reference to the judicial practice in Britain and the United States, the independent contractor’s liability could be assigned as a marine carrier via Himalaya Clause with specific legal and recording prerequisite, but there is no such precedent in Taiwan. Taiwanese judicial practice deems CFS operators as warehouse operators and determines their liabilities by their geographic locations. More, Taiwanese judicial court had made the judgment that considered the CFS service contract as Third Party Beneficiaries; yet, the judgment remains debatable. In addition, while negotiating a liability policy, CFS operators should pay attention to the exclusion clause as well as the efficacy of choice of law, jurisdiction and arbitration when arguments occur. For the sake of uprooting the current cargo damage liability problem, the researchers assume a specialized CFS law is necessary.

並列關鍵字

CFS (Container Freight Station) ； liability ； liability insurance

參考文獻

4. William H. Theis, “Third-Party Beneficiaries in Multimodal Contracts of Carriage. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 385, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004)”, Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, Vol.36, No.2, 2005, p.201-215.

7. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge Co. [1915]A.C. 847.

21. Tweddle v. Atkinson [1861],1B.& S.393.

4. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. “Texts Resulting from work of UNCITRAL.” , visit date: 2008/10/22

1. International Convention relating to the limitation of the liability of Owners of Sea-going Ships, 1957.

國際替代計量

我國貨櫃集散站經營業貨損賠償責任及其責任保險之研究

全文下載

主題瀏覽