傳統上，英美法係國家並未如大陸法係國家般，對於公司負責人或其他董事，課以善良管理人之注意義務，因為英美法未有委任之觀念。因此，法院一般皆規範公司負責人或其他董事之注意義務。而於執行公司職務上，另規範有忠實義務。 　　第二次世界大戰後，日本將英美法所規範之忠實義務，納入其修正商法之範疇中，因而引發善良管理人之注意義務與忠實義務是否相同之理論爭議。本文第一部份，將就日本商法規定對此兩種義務，是否作有具體之區別，作一粗淺之介紹。 　　我國於民國九十年修正公司法時，亦增訂所謂之「忠實義務」，然用字卻使用「忠實執行業務」，兩者是否有其差異性，亦於文中稍作分析。同時，本文亦藉由美國之文獻介紹，對於忠實義務中之「經營判斷原則」之定義，以及公司負責人或其他董事於何種狀況下，得適用經營判斷原則，而受到保護。

　　The Anglo-American legal system traditionally does not adopt the “Prudent Person’s Duty of Care” in the governing of corporate owners or board members as in the Continental legal system. This mainly is due to the Continental legal system’s assigning and representing concept is not applicable in theAnglo-American legal system. So the Anglo-American courts generally regulate corporate owners orboard members on the duty of care and fiduciary duty in their executing of corporate responsibilities. 　　After World War II Japan incorporate the Anglo-American’s “duty of care” into its newly amended business laws. This action later caused theoretical debate over how to differentiate the “duty of care” and the “fiduciary duty” of prudent persons. So in the first part of this paper, we will try to distinguish “duty of care” and “fiduciary duty” in the Japanese business laws. 　　Taiwan amend its Corporate laws in 2001 with the adding of “fiduciary duty” principle but the terms used were “fiduciary business execution”. This paper will try to analyze the differences of the two terms. Also in this paper I will introduce definitions from several US articles on the “Business Judgment Rule” of the fiduciary duty, and on to in what circumstances the corporate owners and board members will be protected by applying the business judgment rule.