美國懲罰性賠償金制度之基礎問題研究

Punitive Damages in the United States of America: A Study of their Basic Issues

戴志傑(Chih-chieh Tai)

指導教授 ： 林德瑞

國立中正大學/法學院/法律學系/博士(2008年)

摘要

「懲罰性賠償金，大陸法系中的布波族」

「當哈利遇見莎莉」而交織出動人的愛情樂章；「當古典遇上古巴」而綻放出多樣的音樂饗宴；當「布爾喬亞」融合「波西米亞」而形成「布波族」的菁英社會階層；當生活元素已講究「混搭」而進入到文化創意產業等後現代實像時，此等長期被認為係屬對立並相互衝突且逕渭分明的人事物，卻在二十世紀晚期交會後，從中進一步地精緻化其可存在的空間並形成「智慧資本」的商業價值。現今在此等潮流的趨勢下，欲從「布波族」當中，將那些反叛傳統文化而啜飲濃縮咖啡的「波西米亞」族群與那些捍衛傳統和中產階級道德觀而猛灌卡布奇諾咖啡的「布爾喬亞」族群予以區分，幾乎已是不可能之事。因此，身處此等時代背景之下，應如何從中獲取更多的啟發以增益社會生活，即屬必要與當然之事。同樣地，儘管法律制度必須立於穩定性與確定性之上以使人民適從，而無法如同流行文化一般得以迅速創造與變化，但亦無可否認的是，其仍須服膺於社會發展過程中所提出的正當性要求。從而，一種法律制度應如何在過去與現在、穩定與發展之間取得平衡，而符合時代之需求以發揮其有效之作用，並不再視其為亙古不變的永恆定律，方屬法律原則與精神之正鵠。

傳統上採取公私二元體系與民事損害填補性原則的大陸法系，姑且不論此等法律原則形成的政治背景因素，在堅持並捍衛此等法律原則下，即長期地排斥此種專屬於英美法系所獨有的懲罰性賠償金制度。然而，隨著商業關係複雜化所日漸衍生的不法行為，以及福利國家資源分配不足等情勢下，即形成日益惡化的「執法落差」現象。至此，如何建構一套法律制度以縮短此種因社會發展而造成的「執法落差」窘境，便為當務之急。因此，在大陸法系與英美法系相互碰撞而逐漸融合之際，儘管大陸法系諸國現今仍舊排斥懲罰性賠償金制度，但其民事損害賠償體系中確有越來越多「倍數賠償金」立法而逐漸形成條文集團；且雖說其此等「倍數賠償金」條文未必即係屬懲罰性賠償金制度，然具有「額外賠償」特徵，或某種程度具有懲罰之意味，亦是無法否認之事。從而，縱算不能言大陸法系與英美法系關於民事損害賠償制度有相互趨同之勢，但大陸法系諸國日漸破除傳統法律原則而制定具有額外賠償特徵的「倍數賠償金」條文已是不爭之事實。而係屬大陸法系體制的我國，除了已在公平法與智慧財產權法領域之中制定具有額外賠償特徵的「倍數賠償金」條款外，尚於消費者保護法中明確地立法引進懲罰性賠償金制度並使用該等名詞，且近年來已有濫觴之勢。是故，儘管或許大陸法系此等公私分離或民事損害填補性原則仍具有其存在之必要，但當現今公法私法化、私法公法化等現象而逐漸打破二元體系的傳統窠臼，以及在提供具有額外賠償特徵的賠償金以抑制不法行為發生等社會需求下，應如何對於此等傳統法律原則進一步地精緻化其例外情形，方屬正確的法律發展方向。

因此，當我國現今於相關經濟法、財經法與民事特別法中，引進英美懲罰性賠償金制度或逐漸形成具有額外賠償特徵的賠償金條文集團時，毋寧意味著此等條文集團已儼然成為我國大陸法系體制當中的「布波族」。然而，令人遺憾的是，具有深邃歷史發展與高度「市民主義」表現以及法規範設計爭論的懲罰性賠償金制度，卻在我國相關立法的表現上，一律地以僵化性的「倍數」模式為之，且亦無一併針對該賠償金制度所衍生的相關問題提供與建構其應有的配套措施，從而可能致使僅有懲罰性賠償金之名，然卻無該賠償金制度之實的窘境，且甚而帶來未受其利先受其害的可能性。是故，應如何正確體會與理解英美法上的懲罰性賠償金制度，以及其所衍生的相關問題，則為我國法制上重新思考與未來修改工作的首要步驟。

是故，隨著當前美國懲罰性賠償金制度改革之際，本文試圖從該賠償金制度之意義與性質、目的與實踐效力等方面加以研究，以瞭解其基礎理論。其次，由於該賠償金制度具有豐厚且爭論的歷史起源，故本文特將其生成史觀獨列專章，以體會其在每一時代背景下的真正意涵及精神與作用，且亦表明本文對其歷史方面的高度重視。再者，因該賠償金制度具有如同刑事法般效力的懲罰與嚇阻目的，且又係透過民事訴訟程序加以進行，從而引發其合憲性方面之爭論。對此，美國聯邦最高法院已於一九八零年代晚期展開一連串的合憲性審查工作，從而此些判決之相關意見亦係該賠償金制度研究上的重要依據。此外，由於該賠償金制度一般上認為係為懲罰與嚇阻那些高度可非難性的不法行為，故其數額的「不可預測性」即內化其中，然卻也同時地成為其內在缺陷之所；又因該其運用在傳統民事訴訟程序之過程中，將可能產生不當的干擾因素而造成違憲性的過度裁決，從而美國各州近年來無論係經由司法判決亦或是透過立法等方式，均已對於其實體法與程序法方面進行一連串的改革活動。因此，關於美國現今懲罰性賠償金制度如何改革且效果為何，亦是本文研究上之重要課題，如此方能作為我國未來此等賠償金制度修法工作以及是否效法等問題上的重要參考依據。

最後，總的來說，英美懲罰性賠償金制度在伴隨著「市民主義」高度表現的陪審團體制運作下，成為「個人維護權利以抗強權的一部奮鬥史」。然卻在一九八零年代後的侵權行為改革運動中，經由相關商業利益團體的政治遊說，而遭受到無情的壓縮與限制，其中莫過於最高限額的立法改革。因此，現今美國懲罰性賠償金制度的改革現況，已被堅持該賠償金制度傳統原貌的論者所批判，並甚而直指該賠償金制度已被關進於利益團體所鑄造的獸籠之內，且敲響了喪鐘並宣告著死亡來臨。而歷史的發展總是令人莞爾，當美國普通法上的懲罰性賠償金制度正走向如同成文法上的「倍數賠償金」制度一般而逐漸限制適用之際，包含我國在內的大陸法系諸國卻在民事損害賠償制度之中逐漸形成具有額外賠償特徵的「倍數賠償金」條文集團。因此，懲罰性賠償金制度於英美法上的適用與大陸法系諸國的對恃上，或許可以比擬為：長期處在天秤右端的大陸法系與處在天秤左端的英美法系，卻在保守主義的自由化與自由主義的保守化之過程中逐漸地趨同。從而，懲罰性賠償金制度不啻為民事損害賠償制度之比較法研究上的重要議題與樂趣也。

關鍵字

懲罰性賠償金 ； 懲戒性賠償金 ； 倍數賠償金 ； 象徵性賠償金 ； 填補性賠償金 ； 懲罰 ； 應報 ； 嚇阻 ； 填補 ； 私人檢察總長 ； 陪審團 ； 羅馬法 ； 歐洲共同法學 ； 司法審查 ； 徵收條款 ； 過度罰金條款 ； 雙重處罰條款 ； 正當程序條款 ； 平等保護條款 ； 侵權行為改革 ； 證據發現程序 ； 證明標準

並列摘要

“Punitive Damages, BOBOS in Civil Law System”

“When Harry Met Sally” spins a moving love story; When “Classic Meets Cuba” blossoms into a feast of music; when bourgeois blends with Bohemian and forms an elite rank of society of BOBOS; when the factors of life stress on mix and match and enters into post-modern virtual images such as cultural creativeness industry, the persons, matters and things which have been long been considered as confronting mutual conflicting and quite distinct from each other furthered to refine existed space and form the commercial values of intellectual capital. Under such trend, it is almost impossible to distinguish in BOBOS from Bohemians who defected from traditional culture and sipped concentrated coffee from the bourgeois group who posed to safeguard tradition and bourgeois’ view of ethics but drank lot of Cappuccinos. Therefore, live in the current environment, how to obtain more enlightenment to benefit social life is a necessary and certain thing. Similarly, despite the fact that any law system has to stand on the stability and certainty that the people could abide by, and could not quickly create and change like popular culture, it is not deniable that a law system should be subject to the requirements of justification provided during the process of development of society. Accordingly, how to balance between the present time and the past, stability and development by a law system and meet the requirements of the times to bring full play of effects and no more consider them as eternal rules that will never be changes, are the right targets for the principles and spirit of laws.

Traditionally, the civil law system adopts the dual public and private systems and compensatory principles for damages in civil code. Let us not go into the political background and factors that form the principles of the laws now. The civil law system sticks to and safeguards the principles of laws and rejected for a long time the punitive damages system existed only in common law system. However, with the increase of illegal behaviors caused by more complex and complicated commercial relationship and the trend of uneven distribution of resources in welfare states, the enforcement gap is widening. So it is urgently needed to work out a law system for make up the enforcement gap caused by the development of society. Therefore, amid the gradual blends after conflicting between civil law system and common law system, despite the countries that adopted civil law system until now still have rejected the punitive damages system, there are more and more “multiple damages” legislations in the damage systems in civil code and gradually form a “clause block”. Although the “multiple damages” clauses are not necessarily the punitive damages system, we cannot deny that they are characterized by “extra compensation” or means punishment to a certain extent. Even we cannot say now that the trend of compensation systems in civil law system and common law system are marching toward the same direction, still, it is a unquestionable fact that the countries that adopted civil law system have been breaking traditional principles in laws and enacting “multiple damages” clauses that are characterized by extra compensation. Taiwan, a country of civil law system, has stipulated “multiple damages” clauses that are characterized by extra compensation in Fair Trade Act and Intellectual Property Act, besides, it has introduced the punitive damages system and use the terms clearly in the legislation of “Customer Protection Act”, and the trend have gained momentum in recent years.
Therefore, in spite of the necessity of existence of public and private separation or compensation principles in civil law system, the public laws are merging with private laws while private laws are merging with public laws and the traditional set pattern of dual systems is collapsing. Owing to the requirements from the society that they need damage system characterized by extra compensation to restrain illegal behaviors, refining the exceptions of the traditional principles of laws is a right direction for the development of the laws.

Therefore, when our country now has introduced punitive damages system stemming from common law system, or gradually forms a damage clause block that is characterized by extra compensation in economy-related laws, finance-related laws and special laws in civil code, it means that the clause block has seemed as the “BOBOS’ in Taiwan’s civil law system. However, it is regrettable that the punitive damages system which has a long history of development and high degree expression of “citizenship” and controversial design of the regulations of laws were regulated rigidly by the legislative model of “times” and had no integral consideration on the problems caused by the damages system and constructed necessary coupling measures in the process of introduction of the law system into Taiwan. The rough and rash legislation highlights that the legislators did not really understand the spirit and essentials of the damages system that some people might say that the time of introduction is the time of death of the system. Therefore, accurate understanding and realizing the punitive damages system in the common law system and its problems caused by the damages system should be the top priority job in the process of introduction of the foreign system into our law system.

As the reforms of the punitive damages system launched in United States, the Thesis is trying to explore the meaning, nature, purposes and effects of implementation of the system to understand its rationale. Secondly, owing to the rich and controversial historical sources of the system, the Thesis describes the historical views of its generation in a chapter to understand the real meaning, spirit and effects of the system under different background of times and demonstrates the high emphasis on the history by the Thesis. Furthermore, because the damages system has the same effect of punishment and deference as criminal code through lawsuit procedures of civil code that has triggered debates of constitutionality. Regarding the point, United States Supreme Court has reviewed the case in late 1980s. The related opinions of the rules are also the important bases of the study on the damages system. Besides, because, generally speaking, the damages system is considered to punish and defer highly censurable and illegal behaviors, the unpredictability of amount will be internalized, and in the meantime, will also become one of its internal defects. Moreover, because it is usually used in the process of lawsuit procedures in civil code that might cause inappropriate factors of disturbance and unconstitutional excessive verdict, so in recent years, a series of reforms of substantial laws and procedure laws have been launched through judicial decision or legislation in various states in the United States. Therefore, the Thesis includes the ways and effects of the current reforms of the punitive damages system in the United States as the important topics. By doing so, we hope the results of the study could provide the authorities with the important references during the amendment of the damages system and policy-decision on whether to model the reforms in future in Taiwan.

In the last part of the Thesis, we conclude that under the operation of jury system that accompanies the high expression of “citizenship”, the Anglo-American punitive damages system has become “a history of struggle and protection of rights by individuals against power”. However, in the infringement act reforming campaigns in 1980s, due to political lobbies by commercial interest groups, the system was curtailed and restrained mercilessly, the legislation reform of ceiling amount in particularly. Therefore, under the beautiful cover of reforms, the current American punitive damages system is trapped in a cage made by the interest groups and the knell has tolled that predicts the coming of death of the system. But the development of history may be ironic. As the punitive damages system in the common law system of United States is marching toward “multiple damages” system like statutory laws and gradually restrict the application, there have been forming a “multiple damages” clause block that is characterized by extra compensation in the damages system in civil code in the countries, including Taiwan, that adopted civil law system. The situation of the punitive damages system in the confrontation of application between the common law system and the civil law system could be compared as follows: the civil law system that have long been placed on the right end of a balance and the common law system that have long been placed on the left end of a balance tend to be congenial in the process of liberalization of conservatism and conservatization of liberalism. Accordingly, the punitive damages system has become one of the important and interesting topics in the comparative law research, particularly in the comparison of the damages systems between the civil law and common law countries.

並列關鍵字

punitive damages ； exemplary damages ； multiple damages ； nominal damages ； compensatory damages ； punishment ； retribution ； deterrence ； compensation ； private attorney general ； jury ； Roman law ； common law of Europe ； judicial review ； Takings Clause ； Excessive Fines Clause ； Double Jeopardy Clause ； Due Process Clause ； Equal Protection Clause ； tort reform ； discovery ； standard of proof.

參考文獻

王兆鵬，〈刑事舉證責任理論—由英美法理論出發—〉，台大法學論叢，第28卷第4期，1999年 7 月，第167至 191 頁。

何建志，〈懲罰性賠償金之法理與運用：論最適賠償金額之判定〉，國立台灣大學法學論叢，2002年 5月，第31卷3期，第237至289頁。

吳永乾，〈美國誹謗法所稱「真實惡意」法則之研究〉，中正大學法學集刊，第15期，2004年4月，第1至97頁。

林德瑞，〈論懲罰性賠償〉，國立中正大學法學集刊，第1期，1998年7月，第25至66頁。

林德瑞，〈論懲罰性賠償金可保性之法律爭議〉，國立中正大學法學集刊，第2期，1999年7月，第103至129頁。