民法債編於一九九九年時，增訂了民法第四八三條之一，明文規定「受僱人服勞務，其生命、身體、健康有受危害之虞者，僱用人應按其情形為必要之預防。」將僱用人之保護照顧義務予以明文化。然而由於民法第四八三條之一乃係一抽象規定，對於保護照顧義務之具體內容並未詳加論述，因此如何特定保護照顧義務之內容，據以主張僱用人之債務不履行損害賠償責任，對受僱人而言即為一棘手的課題。此外，關於保護照顧義務的性質、僱用人違反民法第四八三條之一時之效果，學說上仍有爭議；且自債編修正以來，縱使實務上已累積了相當的案例，學界對民法第四八三條之一相關的研究仍十分有限，且欠缺對我國近年來的實務見解為進一步分析整理之探討。因此，本文擬以實務見解為中心，先探討保護照顧義務之性質，進一步去探究其具體內容及其與勞工安全衛生法規、性別工作平等法中性騷擾防治義務之關係。隨後分析其與民法第一八四條第二項、第四八七條之一的關係，最後進行日本法之介紹與探討，冀透過比較法的觀察，對於我國民法第四八三條之一之發展及實務上的運作能有所助益。

Civil Code § 483-1 was enacted and promulgated in 1999, and so the employer’s duty to care for employee safety and health becomes a statutory one. However, when the employee pursues the employer’s responsibility for damages in the legal context of an exploration of liability for non-performance of an obligation in a contract relationship under the Civil Code, it is very difficult for the employee to specify the content of the violation of the duty to care for safety because Civil Code § 483-1 is very abstract. In praxis of Jurisdiction in Taiwan it seems unusual to specify the actual content of such duty on the part of the employer; neither do scholarly opinions. From the both theoretical and practical aspects, through the analyses of the relationship between Civil Code § 483-1 and the Labor Safety and Health Act and the Gender Equality in Employment Act, the relationship among Civil Code § 483- 1, § 487-1, and § 184, and the cases in Taiwan, this research will construct a framework of the actual content of the employer’s duty to care for safety.