查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論侵權行為法之作為義務=Duty to Act Torts |
---|---|
作者 | 王怡蘋; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
卷期 | 116 2010.08[民99.08] |
頁次 | 頁47-102 |
分類號 | 584.338 |
關鍵詞 | 作為義務; 不作為侵害; 間接侵害; 信賴保護原則; 事實管領能力; 承擔特定任務; 危險前行為; 社會活動安全注意義務; Indirect infringement; Vicarious liability; Liability for damages; Verkehrssicherungspflicht; Duty of care; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 關於我國民法第一八四條第一項前段之規定,普遍肯認得以作為與不作為成立加害行為,惟不作為之侵害類型,以行為人負有作為義務為成立之前提,其理由在於積極作為與侵害結果具有直接關聯性,而不作為之類型,因欠缺直接關聯性,從而須以作為義務之有無認定損害結果歸屬。至於作為義務之有無,除依契約或法律規定外,我國學說與判決多有不同之說明與用字。與我國民法第一八四條第一項前段規定相當類似的是德國民法第八二三條第一項規定,而德國帝國法院於西元一九○二年首度以社會活動安全注意義務(Verkehrssicherungspflicht或Verkehrspflicht)為侵權責任之作為義務,即開啟侵權行為法中相關之研究與發展,不僅出現大量之法院判決,以社會活動安全注意義務建立責任人之作為義務,學說對其法律定位與類型,亦有廣泛之討論。有鑑於作為義務之重要性,故本文希望自我國之判決與學說,並參考德國關於社會活動安全注意義務之討論,討論我國侵權行為法之作為義務。 |
英文摘要 | The objective of infringement law is to prohibit intended or negligent infringement as well as to determine the liability of damage. If one actively infringes the other, such as striking someone with a stick, one can straight-forwardly affirm liability because of the connection between the action and the injury. But if an injury is caused by one's nonaction, or if one's action indirectly results in an injury, it is problematic as to whether and when one should be liable for damages. Since 1902 "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" has been used to explain the liability of omitted action in Germany. Over the last ten years this idea has been recommend by many Taiwanese scholars and accepted by the courts. However, it is still unclear when "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" exists and the extent of its scope. Hence, the first part of this article intends to explain the nature and function of "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" in Germany. Further, this article intends to discuss the condition of liability of omitted action by analyzing various cases. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。