醫學與分子生物學技術之進步、以及科學教育與資訊之普及，使吾人對於自我人身法益的理解與重視，早已跳脫立法者採用「身體權」或「健康權」一詞當時所能想像。社會通念對於身體與健康狀態受損的理解，不再侷限於肢殘體缺等之「巨觀」損傷情狀，而係轉趨次細胞層級之基因或DNA受損等「微觀」思維，此種人身損害概念之轉變，值得吾人關注。 本文藉我國名躁一時之輻射屋案，並參酌美國法上豐富之案例與學說見解，以法學方法以及分子生物學之科際整合觀點探討該案損害之本質。認為被害人因輻射暴露固然導致將來罹病機會之增加，然而，與其將「罹病機會增加」本身視為損害，毋寧認為是因被害人次細胞層級之DNA序列完整性遭輻射破壞，解釋上應可謂此為民法第193條、與第195條所明文之「身體權」侵害，果爾，被害人於輻射暴露後縱尚未出現顯在性人身損害，仍可據以作為包括日後醫療監控費用等增加生活需要之財產上損失、以及非財產之精神上痛苦等損害賠償之請求權基礎。惟次細胞層級之人身損害舉證不易，如何嚴正地適用分子生物學原理、於科學確信的情況下，推定或認定該損害之存在，方能兼顧被害人之救濟可能、損害賠償法之公平正義、以及相關高科技產業之發展，是值得吾人深思的問題。肯認次細胞層級人身損害概念，應可更落實對人格權之保護，並充實我國侵權行為損害賠償體系之內涵，此於新類型人身損害層出不窮之今日，具有格外重要之意義。

Tort law traditionally developed so that people could obtain civil redress only for present immediate personal injuries caused by wrongdoers. However, the injuries could possibly actually hind insidiously in the subcellular level and the final ”real” manifestation of harm is not immediately apparent, for example, as demonstrated here is the case of irradiation-emission tort. The court, by applying the strict traditional doctrine, will certainly not entitle subcellularly injured individuals before clinically detectable disease. On the other hand, the barriers presented by statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, the difficulty of proving causation make a future recovery unlikely. And all this makes the court hardly achieve the goals of compensation, deterrence, and rehabilitative justice in such cases. The core issue seriously facing us is ”Is the asymptomatic subcellular level detriment a legally recognized injury?” Several artful damage theories, developed in the American common law system, contemplated attempts to circumvent the present injury requirement by seeking compensation for an increased risk of developing a future disease, the mental anguish resulting from the fear of a future ailment, impaired quality-of-life, loss-of-chance and/or medical surveillance damages…however, only fail to reach unanimous conclusion. This article, by way of inter-disciplinary approach, applied the basic principle of legal methodology and molecular biology, with special emphasis on elaborating how to cope right with the unique properties of irradiation induced subcellular injuries legally. According to the molecular biological point of view, the irradiation actually destructs the integrity of individual DNA sequence and consequently violates the body right legally. And the injured individual should be recovered both peculiarly and emotionally as such according to our Civil Code §§193(1) & 195(1). Among them, the damages awarded herein concerning the peculiar interest should be limited to the essential quantifiable costs of periodic future medical examinations to detect the onset of physical harm rather than treating the disease itself. Only then can the fairness and justice of jurisdiction finally be realized in liability decision for subcellular injuries.