查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 通勤災害之認定基準--兼評臺北高等行政法院一○三年度訴字第一○五五號判決
- 精神疾病與雇主之職業災害補償及民事賠償責任--兼評臺灣板橋地方法院一○○年度勞訴字第一號判決
- 日本勞動災害補償給付制度之研究--兼論對我國推動職災保險專法之啟示
- 職災法發展專題回顧:以勞工職業災害保險及保護法之立法為中心
- 日本過勞職災之行政認定基準的形成、轉換與法理論爭--兼論我國法制建構之現況與學說發展
- 職業工會勞工參加職業災害保險制度之研究--逆選擇與道德風險的觀點
- 職災補償與損害賠償--以臺日職業災害之雇主責任為中心
- 勞工上下班途中之通勤災害與勞基法雇主職業災害補償責任之關係/士林地院九六勞訴六二
- 職業災害認定技術之介紹--「業務起因性」與「業務遂行性」
- 重返社會保險之路--簡評勞工職業災害保險及保護法之立法及其對勞工職業災害法制發展之意義
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 通勤災害之認定基準--兼評臺北高等行政法院一○三年度訴字第一○五五號判決=The Requirements for Commuting Injuries Approval: Comments on the (103) Su No.1055 Decision Rendered by the Taipei High Administrative Court |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 徐婉寧; | 書刊名 | 政大法學評論 |
| 卷 期 | 148 2017.03[民106.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁113-162 |
| 分類號 | 556.82 |
| 關鍵詞 | 通勤災害; 業務遂行性; 業務起因性; 職業災害; 就業關聯性; 被保險人因執行職務而致傷病審查準則; 職災補償; 勞保條例; 職業災害保險; Commuting injuries; Arising in the course of employment; Arising out of employment; Occupational injuries; With respect to the worker's employment; The regulations of the examination of injuries and diseases resulting from the performance of duties by the insured persons of the labor insurance program; Worker's compensation; The labor insurance act; Occupational accident insurance; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 通勤災害是否屬於職業災害,對於勞資雙方的權益有重大的影響。我國於勞工保險條例授權制定之被保險人因執行職務致傷病審查準則中,明文規定將通勤災害視為職業傷害,而予以勞工保險職業災害保險給付,然其是否屬於勞基法上之職業災害卻非無爭議。再者,現行法上對於通勤災害之定義與認定基準,實付之闕如。則通勤災害之認定基準是否和一般的職業傷害相同,應具備「業務遂行性」與「業務起因性」,即有疑義。蓋通勤災害之本質,與職業災害並不相同,後者乃係處於雇主控制下,業務所內含之危險現實化的結果。則如何去認定是否屬於勞工保險應予給付之視為職業傷害的通勤災害,實有加以探究之必要。 本文擬藉著評釋臺北高等行政法院一○三年度訴字第一○五五號判決,釐清我國通勤災害之認定基準,並透過日本法之介紹,探究通勤災害應有之認定基準。 |
| 英文摘要 | For both the employees and employers, whether or not commuting injuries are compensable is an important issue. According to the Regulations of the Examination of Injuries and Diseases Resulting from the Performance of Duties by the Insured Persons of the Labor Insurance Program-a core drawn up in accordance with the Labor Insurance Act, commuting injuries are considered as occupational injuries. Commuting injuries, therefore, are covered by labor insurance. Whether commuting injuries are occupational injuries according to the Labor Standards Act, however, is still a controversial issue. In addition, the definition of commuting injuries and the requirements of commuting injuries approval are not stipulated in explicit terms by current laws. Similarly, whether the requirements of commuting injuries approval are the same as those of occupational injuries approval-which are arising out of and in the course of employment-is also doubtful. Since the nature of commuting injuries is different from that of occupational injuries which are caused by the hazard inherent in the work under an employer's control, it is necessary to reason what the requirements of commuting injuries approval are-in order to decide what shall be considered as occupational injuries and covered by labor insurance. This research not only comments on the (103) Su No. 1055 Decision Rendered by the Taipei High Administrative Court to clarify the requirements for commuting injuries approval in Taiwan, but also undertakes a comparative study on Japan to discuss the issues above. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。