海事貨損索賠舉證責任分配之研究－以貨物照管義務、適航性義務與法定免責事由為中心

A Study on The Allocating of Burden of Proof in Marine Cargo Claims－Focus on The Duty to Care for Cargo ,The Duty of Seaworthiness and Legal Exemption Clauses

葉耀群(Yao-Chun Yeh)

指導教授 ： 許美玲

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2008年)

摘要

舉證責任及舉證順序之分配為海牙及海牙威士比規則中最為重要且須謹記在心之概念。自一九二四制定海牙規則以來，其舉證責任分配即透過下列三個相關聯之概念維持巧妙之平衡：(1)運送人於發航前或發航時應盡相當注意使船舶適航之義務(海牙規則第三條第一項)；(2)運送人應謹慎並注意照管貨物之義務(海牙規則第三條第二項)；(3)海牙規則第四條第二項之運送人法定免責事由。往往發願接透過研究並藉定此三個概念之範疇以分配當事人之責任。然而，如何巧妙分配此三個概念需要高超的技巧，即如同馬戲團中的表演者般，維持三顆球在空中久久不墜般困難。綜上，我們得透過解釋這三顆球的內涵以界定海牙規則舉證責任之分配。

然而，漢堡規則未如海牙規則班有如此複雜的舉證責任架構，其相對而言簡單許多。因為漢堡規則中適航性義務、貨物照管義務及法定免責事由三個條文結合而規定於第五條第一項中，因此，索賠人僅需證明交好返壞，運送人即受推定負責。這也代表，索賠人僅需證明損害之發生，運送人即應證明其與其履行輔助人已盡一切注意及合理之手段避免損害之發生。

除了國際公約本身外，國際公約於各國之實踐始真正影響國際海運之發展，透過介紹美國海上貨物運送法及日本國際海上物品運送法之舉證責任分配，我們可從中發現大陸法與英美法之不同。最後，我國的海商法充斥著英美法之概念，然而我們仍需處理海商法與我國其他法律之衝突。而解決衝突最佳且最簡單之作法，即為參照日本法而為部份之修正。

關鍵字

舉證責任 ； 貨物照管義務 ； 適航性義務 ； 責任基礎

並列摘要

From the outset, one crucially important concept must be borne in mind in studying the order and burden of proof under the Hague and Hague/Visby Rules. The Hague Rules, from their inception in 1924, sought to strike a delicate balance among three interrelated principles: a) the carrier’s obligation to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the commencement of the voyage (art. 3(1)); b) the carrier’s obligation to care properly and carefully for the cargo (art. 3(2)); and c) the carrier’s exculpatory exceptions under art. 4(2)(a) to (q). Allocating liability for marine cargo claims under the Rules depends, in many cases, on the court’s analysis of the interplay between these three notions. It requires a skill resembling that of a juggler juggling three balls at a circus. Above all, we can allocating the burden of proof by explaining the meaning of the three “ball”.

Not like the complicated structure of burden of proof in Hague Rules, the burden of proof under the Hamburg Rules is relatively clear, because the due diligence provision, the care of cargo provision and the exculpatory exceptions (being art. 3(1), art. 3(2) and art. 4(2)(a) to (q) respectively of the Hague/Visby Rules) are all found in art. 5(1) of the Hamburg Rules. Thus the claimant must prove his claim and then the carrier must exculpate himself. This means proving the cause of the loss, because he must show that “he, his servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the occurrence and its consequence.” The carrier then proves he fell within one of the exceptions.

Besides the Conventions, the implement of convention indeed affect the sea cargo claims in the world. Throughout the notice of the burden of proof in Carriage of Goods by Sea Act(American)and International Carriage of Goods by Sea Act(Japan),we can compare the difference of Civil Law and Common Law.

Finally, the Maritime Law in Taiwan filled with the concept of Common Law. But we still have to face the conflict between maritime law and the other laws in Taiwan.At the end,we still must make choice－Civil law or Common law?The best and most easy way to avoid conflict is to modify Maritime Law by consultation of International Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in Japan partly.

並列關鍵字

burden of proof ； the duty of care for cargoes ； seaworthiness ； basis of liability

參考文獻

1. 吳昭瑩，＜貨物運送人責任之免責事由－火災免責條款＞，《法令月刊》，第二十五卷，第十一期，一九七四年十一月一日。

4. 林一山，＜貨物運送人與其履行輔助人法律責任之探討＞，《臺灣海洋法學報》，第一卷、第二期，二００二年十一月。

11. 張志清，＜論我國海商法下貨物運送人之基本義務及強制責任＞，《運輸計畫季刊》，第三十卷、第三期，民國九十年九月。

18. 劉宗榮，＜在海上運送，因運送人或其履行輔助人之過失發生火災致貨物毀損滅失者，運送人是否均不得主張免除責任?＞，《台大法學論叢特刊(七十四年度民事裁判所研究專集) 》，一九八六年十一月。

3. 邱展發，《海運索賠實務》，長榮國際股份有限公司經銷，二００一年五月，再版修訂，三民書局。