:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:論動力車輛事故之侵權行為責任、責任保險與無過失補償:以經濟抑制理論為基礎
書刊名:國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者:汪信君 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Hsin-chun
出版日期:2010
卷期:39:1
頁次:頁237-285
主題關鍵詞:侵權行為無過失補償責任保險嚴格責任經濟抑制理論事業責任理論強制汽車責任保險法TortNo-fault compensationLiability insuranceStrict liabilityEconomic deterrence theoryEnterprise liability theoryCompulsory automobile liability insurance act
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(4) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:89
  • 點閱點閱:64
於國內過去民事法學研究上,關於侵權行為與保險制度間之互動關係甚少相關文獻加以探討。因此本文乃以侵權行為理論中涉及侵權行為與保險制度兩者間關係之學說為基礎,亦即分別論述事業責任理論與經濟抑制理論對於兩者互動關係之探討。以事業責任理論為例,主張此說之學者多強調傳統過失責任為基礎之侵權行為無法適用於現代侵權行為類型,因此倡議應以全面性社會補償制度取代侵權行為對於損害補償之功能。經濟抑制理論學者則另強調侵權行為之重要機能為抑制事故之發生,因此著重探討不同侵權行為規範下所產生之抑制效果。當不同侵權行為規範對於加害人、被害人以及社會財富產生抑制影響時,責任保險與無過失補償制度之出現則反而降低原先侵權行為規範之抑制機能。本文即以經濟抑制理論為基礎探討現行動力車輛交通事故下侵權行為與強制汽車責任保險間之互動關係。而立法改革上無過失補償制度漸有倡議者之同時,本文亦藉由實證研究結果之歸納,探討無過失補償對於侵權行為抑制機能之影響及其間接造成死亡事故率之增加。同時亦認為如欲導入無過失補償制度時,則更為完善之費率機制以及適當之交通罰則為應先考量之方法,藉此以降低無過失補償制度所可能產生之問題。
From the traditional civil law legal research in Taiwan, the legal-economic analysis concerning the relationship between liability insurance and the tort system has seldom been carried out. As a result, this study will be based on the discussion regarding two tort theories in U.S., namely enterprise liability theory and economic deterrence theory. Enterprise liability theorists mainly advocate the abolition of the fault system in favor of social insurance scheme. In contrast, economic deterrence theorists provide a view to analyze deterrence effect of different tort rules and to address the main function of tort law, which should give an incentive to a reduction of total social costs of accidents. As the effects of torts rules may influence on the injuries’ behavior, victims' behavior and social welfare, liability insurance and no-fault compensation might significant influence these effects. Based on the economic deterrence theory, this paper reviews the current legal system relating to automobile accidents. While the legal issue regarding the no-fault compensation is emerging, several empirical evidences can be found that no-fault compensation might distort the deterrence effect offered by tort law and would possible increase in fatal accident rates. In this regard, it is suggested that better experiences rating plans and an appropriate set of penalties would mitigate higher accident rates in the adoption of no-fault compensation.
期刊論文
1.Shavell, S.(1982)。On liability and insurance。Bell Journal of Economics,13,pp.120-132。  new window
2.陳忠五(20050100)。法國交通事故損害賠償法的發展趨勢--以一九八五年七月五日法律的改革為中心。國立臺灣大學法學論叢,34(1),81-184。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.王澤鑑(20050800)。損害賠償法之目的:損害填補、損害預防、懲罰制裁。月旦法學,123,207-219。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.孫森焱、王澤鑑、蔡偉逸(20010100)。自危險責任之生成與發展論民法第一百九十一條之三--民法研究會第十九次學術研討會。法學叢刊,46(1)=181,171-193。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.江朝國(20011100)。汽車交通事故特別補償基金之功能及補償關係之釐清--評臺灣高等法院高雄分院九十年度上易字第二二號民事判決。月旦法學,78,58-72。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.江朝國(20040800)。論強制汽車責任保險法被保險人之範圍--兼評相關修正草案之規定。月旦法學,111,116-126。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.楊佳元(20050600)。侵權行為過失責任之體系與一般要件。臺北大學法學論叢,56,205-254。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.Goldberg, John C. P.(1997)。Comment, misconduct, misfortune, and just compensation: Weinstein on Torts。Columbia Law Review,97,2034-2063。  new window
9.Goldberg, J. C. P.(2002)。Twentieth-century tort theory。Georgetown Law Journal,91,513-584。  new window
10.James, F. Jr.(1948)。Accident liability reconsidered: The impact of liability insurance。Yale Law Journal,57,pp.549-570。  new window
11.Keating, G. C.(1997)。The idea of fairness in the law of enterprise liability。Michigan Law Review,95,pp.1266-1339。  new window
12.Keeton, R. E.(1959)。Conditional fault in the law of torts。Harvard Law Review,72,pp.401-444。  new window
13.Kochanowski, P. S.、Young, M. V.(1985)。Deterrent aspects of no-fault automobile insurance: Some empirical findings。Journal of Risk and Insurance,52,pp.269-288。  new window
14.Landes, E.(1982)。Insurance liability and accidents: A theoretical and empirical investigation of the effect of no-fault accidents。Journal of Law & Economics,25,pp.49-65。  new window
15.Landes, William M.、Posner, Richard A.(1981)。The positive economic theory of Tort Law。Georgia Law Review,15,851-885。  new window
16.Mattei, U.(2005)。The rise and fall of law and economics: An essay for Judge Guido Calabresi。Maryland Law Review,64,pp.220-249。  new window
17.McEwen, I.(1989)。No-fault and road accidents: Some australasian evidence。International Review of Law and Economics,9,pp.13-24。  new window
18.O'Connell J.(1994)。Blending reform of Tort liability and health insurance: A necessary mix。Cornell Law Review,79,pp.1303-133 8。  new window
19.Oliphant, K.(2004)。Rylands v Fletcher and the emergence of enterprise liability in the common law。European Tort Law,pp.81-120。  new window
20.王澤鑑(2005)。〈 特殊侵權行為(八):動力車輛駕駛人責任與強制汽車責任保險制度〉。《 台灣本土法學》,73 期,頁23-36。  延伸查詢new window
21.林勳發(2005)。〈 強制汽車責任保險法主要爭議與修正條文評述〉。《 台灣本土法學》,69 期,頁60-88。  延伸查詢new window
22.陳忠五(2005)。〈 強制汽車責任保險法立法目的之檢討>。《 台灣本土法學》,70 期,頁59-100。  延伸查詢new window
23.葉敔洲(2005)。〈 從審判實務檢討現行強制汽車保險機制之難題:以保險汽車與未保險汽車共生事故為例,兼評新法相關修正〉。《 成大法學》,9 期,頁125-207。  延伸查詢new window
24.武田昌之(1999)。運行供用者と共同運行供用者:規範的把握と個別的判断。損害保険研究,61(2),頁41-80。  延伸查詢new window
25.Abraham, K. S.(2005)。Liability insurance and accident prevention: The evolution of an idea。Maryland Law Review,64,pp.573-612。  new window
26.Brown, J. P.(1973)。Towards an economic theory of liability。Journal of Legal Studies,2,pp.323-349。  new window
27.Bruce, C. J.(1984)。The deterrent effects of automobile insurance and Tort Law: A survey of the empirical literature。Law and Policy,6(1),pp.67-100。  new window
28.Cummins, J. D., Phillips, R. D.、Weiss, M. A.(2001)。The incentive effects of no-fault automobile insurance。Journal of Law and Economics,44(2),pp.427-464。  new window
29.Dewees, D.、Trebilcock, M.(1992)。The efficacy of the Tort system and its alternatives: A review of the empirical evidence。Osgoode Hail Law Journal,30,pp.57-138。  new window
30.Epstein, R. A..(1985)。Products liability as an insurance market。Journal of Legal Studies,14,pp.645-669。  new window
31.Posner, R. A.(2005)。Guido Calabresi's The costs of accidents: A reassessment。Maryland Law Review,64,pp.12-23。  new window
32.Schwartz, G. T.(2000)。Auto no-fault and first-party insurance: Advantages and problems。Southern California Law Review,73,pp.611-675。  new window
33.Shavell, S.(1980)。Strict liability versus negligence。Journal of Legal Studies,9,pp.1-25。  new window
34.Shavell, S.(2000)。On the Social Function and the Regulation of Liability Insurance。Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance,25,pp.166-179。  new window
35.Simon, J.(1998)。Driving govemmentality: Automobile accidents, insurance, and the challenge to social order in the inter-war years, 1919-1941。Connecticut Insurance Law Journal,4,pp.1919-1941。  new window
36.Viscussi, W. K.(1983)。Alternative approaches to valuing the health impacts of accidents: Liability law and prospective evaluations。Law and Contemporary Problems,46,pp.49-68。  new window
37.Zador, P.、Adrian, L.(1986)。Re-analysis of the effects of no-fault auto insurance on fatal crashes。Journal of Risk and Insurance,53,pp.226-241。  new window
研究報告
1.Cohen, A.、Dehejia, R. H.(2003)。The effect of automobile insurance and accident liability laws on traffic fatalities。  new window
2.Rea, S. A.(1988)。Compensation for Automobile Accident Victims in Ontario: A Simulation。Toronto。  new window
圖書
1.潮見佳男(1999)。不法行為法。信山社。  延伸查詢new window
2.Shavell, Steven(1987)。Economic Analysis of Accident Law。Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press。  new window
3.王澤鑑(1998)。侵權行為法(一):基本理論、一般侵權行為。臺北:王澤鑑。  延伸查詢new window
4.Kaplow, Louis、Shavell, Steven M.(2002)。Fairness versus Welfare。Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press。  new window
5.西島梅治(1991)。保險法。東京:悠悠社。  延伸查詢new window
6.江朝國(2006)。強制汽車責任保險法。元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Landes, William M.、Posner, Richard A.(1987)。The Economic Structure of Tort Law。Harvard University Press。  new window
8.Calabresi, Guido(1970)。The cost of accidents: A legal and economic analysis。Yale University Press。  new window
9.Gaudry, M.(1988)。The effects on road safety of the compulsory insurance flat premium rating and no-fault features of the 1978 Quebec Automobile Act。Report of inquiry into motor vehicle accident compensation in ontario, Vol. 2。  new window
10.Harris, D. et al.(1984)。Compensation and support for illness and injury。  new window
11.木宮高彥、羽成守、坂東司朗(1986)。注釈自動車損害賠償保障法。東京。  延伸查詢new window
12.加藤一郎(1974)。法律学全集:不法行為,增補版。東京。  延伸查詢new window
13.我妻栄(1937)。事務管理• 不当所得• 不法行為。東京。  延伸查詢new window
14.Atiyah, P. S.(1997)。The damages lottery。UK。  new window
15.Baldwin, R.、Cave, M.(1999)。Uderstanding regulation: Theory, strategy and practice。Oxford:Oxford University Press。  new window
16.Faure, Michael、Grimeaud, David(2003)。Finanical Assurance Issues of Environmental Liability。Detterence, insurability, and compensation in environmental liability-future developments in the European Union。  new window
17.Gamer, B. A.(1995)。A dictionary of modern legal usage。  new window
18.Shavell, S.(2004)。Foundations of economic analysis of law。The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press。  new window
19.Sugarman, S. D.(1989)。Doing away with personal injury law Quorum Books。  new window
20.White, G. E.(2003)。Tort Law in America: An intellectual history (Supp. ed.)。New York。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
1. 護病比一比二十八,如何每小時巡房?
2. 主觀承保範圍與保險責任承擔--保險人對被保險人因重大過失造成的保險事故理賠嗎?
3. 健保署代位求償案:向責任保險人之代位追償與第三人直接請求權之關係
4. 無照駕駛者撞傷酒後駕車者的強制車險給付、賠償責任抵充與代位追償--臺灣高雄地方法院107年度訴字第47號判決評析
5. 消保法第51條「損害額」之範圍--評最高法院民事大法庭108年度臺上大字第2680號裁定
6. 從大立光案觀察侵害營業秘密損害賠償之實務操作--評智慧財產法院102年度民營訴字第6號判決
7. 法定代理人之侵權責任與免責抗辯--以臺灣高等法院103年度上更(一)字第39號民事判決為例
8. 論醫療損害風險社會化分擔--以全民健康保險之國家責任為核心
9. 強制車險應該分擔未投保車輛駕駛人的賠償責任?--從一則簡易判決談數車事故的分擔比例與強制車險代位追償的對象
10. 人工智慧、標準壟斷與同化危機:論Cyber-Humans Our Future with Machines
11. 自駕車時代汽車責任保險之應有風貌
12. 保險代位權於國家賠償事件適用之探討--相關判決及國賠實務綜合分析
13. 強制汽車責任保險有無金融消費者保護法第20條公平合理原則之適用?兼論財團法人金融消費評議中心105年評字第138號評議書
14. 強制汽車責任保險制度之評論--以限額無過失責任為核心
15. 被害人酒後駕車是強制汽車責任保險的法定除外危險?--臺灣高等法院花蓮分院104年度原上字第9號判決評析
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE