本論文探討兩個主題：海上貨物運送人關於海上運送的免責事由應該如何修正，以及免責事由的規定方法，如何紊入民事責任體系。 在免責事由的修正方面，本文介紹了海牙規則、漢堡規則以及鹿特丹規則關於海上運送人責任的規定，並且從保險公司有效分出再保險的觀點，比較與我國海上保險有再保險關係的各個國家的海商法之規定，發現各國海上貨物運送人責任，基本上仍然應該維持海牙維斯比規則，頂多只是因為航海技術進步的原因，刪除運送人就其船長、海員等關於「航海過失」、「管理船舶過失」所致承運貨物的毀搊、滅失、遲到的搊害賠償的免責規定。 海商法第69條的免責規定，是民事責任體系的一環。本文一方面以現行海商法第69條為基礎，即運送人就其船長、海員等關於「貨物管理」有過失致所承運的貨物發生毀搊、滅失、遲到上得免責，但是就其船長、海員等關於「航海過失」、「管理船舶」、「船舶火災」所致承運貨物之毀搊、滅失、遲到可以免責的規定，試擬與民法第224條銜接的條文；另一方面也假設修正的立法，刪除了運送人之船長、海員等關於「航海過失」、「管理船舶過失」所致貨物的毀搊、滅失、遲到的免責規定，如何與民法第224條的規定相銜接，試擬條文。

With respect to the revision of cargo carrier liability exemptions, this article introduces the Hague Rules, the Hamburg Rules, and the Rotterdam Rules regarding the responsibility of the cargo carrier. It then determined that the Hague Rules is more applicable by comparing, from the perspective of reinsurance, the Maritime Law of the countries that have reinsurance relationships with Taiwan. The Hague Rules would just need to be modified in application to reflect improvements in navigation technology; i.e. delete the exclusions related to damages, losses and delays suffered as a result of the cargo carrier’s negligence in navigation and negligence in the management of ship. Exclusion rules in Article 69 of the Maritime Law are a part of the civil liability system. This article attempts to draft a connecting clause with Article 224 of the Civil Code based on Article 69 of the Maritime Law – specifically the captain and the crew’s liability in losses associated with cargo management and their release from liability on losses related to navigational error, ship management and fire on the ship. This article also attempts to draft a connecting clausewith Article 224 of the Civil Code under the assumption that the captain and the crew are not released from liability associated with losses from navigational errors and ship management.