我國的侵權法基本上是參了德國的體系架構，惟作為基本類型的民法第一八四條在適用上始終有一些爭議，第二項的修正固然釐清了違法侵權類型是否獨立存在的爭議，但舉證責任倒置用在同時構成權利害的情形，使無過失責任實質上有凌駕過失責任之勢，是否妥當仍然構成不小的困擾。本文嘗試從基本類型的功能入分析，認為民事侵權行為制度的基本功能在於分配社會行為的風險，保護人民的財產利益，不在保護權利、風俗或法律本身。為了適度分配，只能就違反對世規範者，以及可特定的受害者，規定侵權的債之關係。民法第一八四條所規定的三種基本類型，又以第一麵為狹義侵權類型，立法者在其他地方直接規定的侵權規範，都是這種類型的特別規定，另外兩種背俗侵權和違法侵權類型則是「轉介條款」，轉介立法者未直接規定侵權責任的社會理和公法強制規範，成為民事侵權規範。這兩個類型的存在，目的不在為對世權遭到侵害者提供多一層的保護，而是在真補非對世權遭到侵害，卻沒有特別規定可以保護的漏洞，並調和公私法價值的衝突。因此在對世權受到侵害的情形，應無適用違法侵權類型的餘地。司法者在適用轉介條款，特別是違法侵權類型時，負有權衝私法自治與國家管制的任務。如果能正確掌握其體系功能，前途的疑慮應該可以得到比較合理的解決。

　　　　　Taiwan's law of torts is similarly structured as that of German BGB. The vague wording of Subsection 2, Sec. 184, however, has left room for controversy over the existence of the third type of act in breach of law. The late amendment of this subsection clarifies the issue with a more clear ground for an independent claim for damage due to breach of law. Nevertheless, lawyers continue to use this subsection as a mere rule to shift the burden of proof in case of trespass on absolute rights. This has resulted in a near to non-fault liability in spite of the principle of fault as generally recognized. By an analysis of the rationale behind the German model, this article intends to make clear that this third type of unlawful acts never bears the function of strengthening the position of claimant in case of the first type, i.e. trespass on absolute rights. It serves only to remedy those who suffer pure economic loss without any absolute right being infringed. In a bears the same function as the second type of unlawful acts, acts conflicting the order public. While the latter transmits social norms into the sphere of private law, the former transmits state laws. Therefore they could be seen as two "transmission" norms in the law of tort. The basic types of unlawful acts still hold on the principle of fault, thus differing from some of the special types of unlawful acts.