勞動基準法59條之雇主職災補償與損害賠償

Labor Compensation According to Art. 59 of Formosan Labor Standard Law and Its Relationship to Civil Damages

勞工因職災受傷時，勞基法59條課予雇主補償責任，但有可歸責之第三人時，勞工亦可向其請求損害賠償。我國最高法院認為勞災補償與損害賠償性質不同，除非法律有抵充規定，否則受害勞工可兩者兼得。不過，也有反對見解，認為勞工不應獲得「雙份填補」。2021年4月三讀通過、2022年5月施行之《勞工職業災害保險及保護法》並未處理此問題。本文對此加以檢討，發現我國法課予雇主之勞災補償責任比日本、德國還重。本文主張：勞基法課予雇主補償責任，於允許勞工獲得雙份填補、允許有重大過失之勞工也能請求全額補償而不減輕雇主責任之部分，並非必要而合理，而有違反憲法上之比例原則而虞。雇主承擔過重的補償責任也可能虧損或倒閉，反危及勞工工作機會。雇主之勞災補償責任應絕大部分由保險承擔，對勞工與雇主均有利。日本於1947年已由保險承擔勞災責任，我國到2022年尚未達成，我國勞災補償法制可謂落後日本至少75年。

"A labor being injured because of his work is entitled to claim for compensation from the employer according to Art. 59 of Formosan Labour Standard Law. If another person is accountable for the injury of the labor, the labor can also claim civil damages from that person. It is the long standing opinion of the Formosan Supreme Court that the labor can keep both the compensation from his employer and the damages from the accountable person. This article argues that it is wrong, and makes reference to labor compensation law in Japan and Germany."