我國貨櫃集散站經營業責任制度之研究

A study on the liability system of Container Freight Station in Taiwan

陳契宏(Chi-Hung Chen)

指導教授 ： 曾文瑞

長榮大學/管理學院/經營管理研究所(博)/碩士(2006年)

摘要

我國除港區內之貨櫃集散站外，亦有因港區腹地不足問題，於港區外衍生出內陸貨櫃集散站。在我國當貨物於貨櫃集散站發生毀損或滅失時，港區貨櫃集散站因海商法第76條第2項之規定，可適用運送人之相關抗辯及利益，但內陸貨櫃集散站，因適用民法倉庫之規定，須負全額之賠償責任，就同屬特許經營之貨櫃集散站而言，實屬不公；故欲對我國現行貨櫃集散站之損害賠償責任制度及法律地位作更深入之研究，並探討喜馬拉雅條款之法理依據及於我國之效力到底為何，最後再對我國貨櫃集散站經營業之責任體制問題提出具體之建議。
而本文主要係採文獻回顧法及比較研究法二種方法進行研究。首先對傳統倉庫及貨櫃集散站之作業內容做一比較，發現兩者本質上係屬倉庫契約性質，但貨櫃集散站具有多種之混合契約性質，故兩者不應屬相同之行業，其責任制度應不相同；再對貨櫃集散站之責任制度進行深入之探討，發現不論係港區內或港區外之貨櫃集散站，作業內容、流程大同小異，契約性質亦屬相同，但兩者卻有不同之賠償責任制度，甚為不妥。載貨證券背面之喜馬拉雅條款，乃係欲使運送人之運送輔助人亦能適用運送人相關抗辯及責任利益之條款，該條款之法理係採「代理」為基礎，若未違背強制規定，應屬有效，惟我國最高法院尚未出現相關之判決予以佐證此條款之效力。國際間對於運送輔助人之立法趨勢乃不論係各國法或國際公約，對於運送輔助人皆漸漸予以規範，甚至具有獨自立法使其具專門之責任體制，其地位已漸漸受到重視。本研究最後建議修改海商法第76條，並建議對於內陸貨櫃集散站亦能適用單位責任限制之利益或受海商法之規範與保護，並於尚未增修法律之前，應提高責任保險金額以轉嫁其營運風險。

關鍵字

貨櫃集散站 ； 喜馬拉雅條款 ； 海商法第76條 ； 單位責任限制

並列摘要

The major purpose of inland CFS(container freight station) is making up for the hinterland isn’t enough in the commercial port area. According to the Article 76 of Maritime Law in ROC (Republic Of China), it provides that the carrier’s agent and servant could entitle to allege the same rights as carrier, it also offers the stevedores, CFS, trailer industries who perform their duties within commercial port areas, have the same rights of defenses and liability limitation as carrier, but the inland CFS couldn’t entitle to allege the same rights as carrier. It becomes two kinds of responsibility system. Because of this reason, I want to do the research of CFS’s system of responsibility in ROC, and analysis the theory of law and effectiveness in Himalaya Clause, and suggest my comments.
The methods of this research are review of technical literature and comparing researches. It starts to compare the traditional warehouse and CFS, and it reveals these two kinds of industry is different. The CFS contains more kinds of contract nature, it’s a mixed contract and the operations in CFS are more complicated. The system of responsibility should be different in these two kinds of industry. The “agency” theory is the foundation of the Himalaya clause, and the effectiveness of this clause should be valid in ROC unless violating the regulations of law. In according with the trend of legislation, it’s getting more laws and conventions to stipulate for the subs-contractors. Finally, suggesting to modify the Maritime Law in ROC or set up the new law to stipulate the CFS, and expect to apply the unit liability limitation. This study also suggest thought liability insurance to transfer the liability risk of operation before modify the Maritime Law.

並列關鍵字

CFS-Himalaya clause ； the Article 76 of Maritime Law ； unit liability limitation

參考文獻

2.林一山，承攬運送契約爭議問題之探討，台灣海洋法學報，創刊號，頁170-190。

3.林一山，貨物運送人與其履行輔助人法律責任之探討，台灣海洋法學報，第一卷第二期，頁25-51。

30.William. Tetley. Maritime Cargo Claims.3rd ed, Blais, 1988.

8.詹森林，定型化契約條款效力之規範-最高法院90年台上2011號、91年台上2220號、92年台上39號判決之商榷，律師雜誌，第二百九十三期，民國93年，頁21-40。

一、書籍