商品自傷之研究：所有權侵害或純粹經濟上損失？

Damages On Commodity Injury：Property Damage or Pure Economic Loss？

林栗民(Li-Min Lin)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700693

摘要

本論文為「商品自傷」之研究，主要係探討：面臨商品自傷問題時，侵權法是否、如何給予被害人救濟。商品自傷的重要案例：例如2016年2月6日，臺灣南部發生高雄美濃地震，被評價為繼1999年集集大地震以來，傷亡最嚴重的地震。其中，維冠金龍大樓完全倒塌，造成人數高達115人死亡及逾百人輕重傷之嚴重事件；此外，除建物等不動產，在動產如汽車由於車身瑕疵、設計不當或機件故障具有重大危險，甚至因而暴衝、爆胎或起火燃燒，導致車身受損、致人死傷，時有所聞。2016年8月底開始，三星Galaxy Note 7手機發生的全球性範圍爆炸事件等，亦均為顯例。

商品自傷因為涉及純粹經濟上損失（pure economic loss）的保護爭議，乃各國理論與實務的熱門焦點。有別於單純法條的對比，本文旨在整理分析各國的重要裁判及其發展現況，資與台灣本土標竿案例進行對照，從事比較研究，盼能更深刻理解商品自傷、純粹經濟上損失的實際運作，認識不同的裁判風格及論證方法，並有助於此一領域的研究與發展。

有鑑於論證應從本國法體系出發之考量，本文第一章首先介紹台北新家族案的案例事實，及各審級法院見解，於第二章接著分析所涉及侵權法上請求權基礎的主要學者論述、近年法院立場。第三章則較詳細地考察了比較法的相類案例，特別關注於不同個案間的歷史進程、年代關聯等脈絡，力求在一定程度上，呈現商品自傷的時空變化趨勢。第四章，本文再就目前台灣學說與實務關於商品自傷的既有論述，與前開章節歸納整合、分析探討。最後，並對台北新家族案的判決予以評釋、提出本文觀點。本文認為，透過各國實務案例的發展觀察，商品自傷的規範評價模式，不僅為所有權與純粹經濟上損失的區分問題，台灣既有侵權法架構在處理商品自傷問題時，已然面臨保護不足的困境，重新聚焦於義務違反等面向的思考，應有必要。

關鍵字

商品自傷 ； 商品瑕疵 ； 建物瑕疵 ； 所有權侵害 ； 純粹經濟上損失 ； 經濟損失規則

並列摘要

This thesis is themed with “product injuries itself” and majorly engaged in discussing over whether the Tort Law is applicable to injured person and how it relieves them when they are confronting with “product injuries itself” issues. Following are important cases of “product injuries itself”：for instance, on February 6, 2016, an earthquake hit southern Taiwan, Mino, Kaohsiung which was valued as the greatest earthquake in terms of casualty since 1999, Chi-Chi earthquake. In the earthquake, Weiguan Jinlong (Golden Dragon) Apartment was totally toppled down that resulted in 115 deaths and over one hundred mildly or seriously wounded patients. Besides, in addition to real estates, the movable properties, such as cars were exposed to huge danger or even unintended acceleration, tire bursting or bursting into flames due to car flaws, improper designs or machinery failures which led to car damage, death to persons from time to time. From the end of August of 2016, Samsung Galaxy Note 7 mobile phone explosion issues on a global scale were also cases in point.

“Product injuries itself” has always been a hot topic in theory and case law of different countries due to the protective disputes on pure economic loss. Different from simple comparisons among acts and regulations, this paper focuses on figuring out and analyzing the important decisions of different countries and their development status quo. Hence, the comparisons were made among the local representative cases in Taiwan and I was engaged in comparative researches expecting that it would present a further understanding of “product injuries itself”, actual operation of pure economic loss and understand different judgment styles and demonstration methods as well as make contribution to the development of this field.

Given that the argument shall be based on domestic legal system, this paper firstly introduces the case facts of Taipei New Family Case and the insights of court of instance at different levels in Chapter 1, and followed by analyzing the scholar discussions, courts’ positions in recent years over the basis of the claim at the level of Tort Law in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 observes the similar cases in ways of comparison in detail, especially the historic processes, eras and other aspects of different cases endeavoring to demonstrate the spatiotemporal variation trends of “product injuries itself”, to some extent. In chapter 4, this paper interprets the decision of Taipei New Family Case and proposes its own points of view based on applicable discussions over “product injuries itself” and inductive integration in previous chapters. This paper holds the view that by the development and observation of case law of different counties, the self-valuation mode of “product injuries itself” is not simple discrimination of property damage and pure economic cost any more. The applicable Tort Law structure has run into a dilemma of protection deficiency when handling “product injuries itself”, in consequence, it’s necessary to focus on pondering on breach of duty.

並列關鍵字

Commodity Injury ； Damage to the Product Itself ； Defective Product ； Building Defects ； Property Damage ； Pure Economic Loss ； Economic Loss Rule ； Economic Loss Doctrine

參考文獻

陳聰富（2015），〈債權侵害之侵權責任－評最高法院102年度台上字第312號民事判決〉，《月旦裁判時報》，32期，頁14-22。

謝哲勝（2014），〈商品自傷非商品責任的保護客體－評最高法院96年度台上字第2139號民事判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，232期，頁246-254。

顏佑紘（2009），《民法第一百八十四條第二項侵權責任之研究》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。

陳聰富（2015），〈建物瑕疵之侵權責任：商品自傷的損害賠償〉，《政大法學評論》，143期，頁61-122。

詹森林（2011），〈《臺大法學論叢》與臺灣民法學說、實務及立法之發展〉，《臺大法學論叢》，40卷特刊，頁1595-1624。