醫師違反「告知後同意法則」，並未有特別法律規範相關侵權責任，故應以一般侵權行為法過失責任歸責之，本文評析實務上法院適用民法第184條第2項及第1項前段規定之見解。次探討醫師告知義務範圍及內容之標準，因其為醫師是否違反注意義務認定之依據，末以法院之見解分析侵權責任成立之因果關係應如何認定。本文藉由實務觀察，試圖釐清法規上適用與解釋之疑義並提供建議，希冀對實務上處理相關問題時，能有所助益。

There is no statute governing physicians’ tort liability based on lack of informed consent so traditional tort law of negligence should be applied. This Article begins by analyzing the courts’ opinions regarding the application of the second paragraph and the beginning part of the first paragraph of Article 184 of the Civil Code. It then exams two distinct standards of care to measure the sufficiency of physicians’ disclosures in informed consent cases. Finally, this Article addresses the courts’ opinions regarding the standards to determine the causation element of tort liability. By studying the courts’ cases, it tries to clarify the application of the informed consent law on tort liability and then offers suggestions that can be used by courts to analyze related issues in the future.