一般侵權行為法之再省思——繼受德國法下之困境

Rethinking of Torts Law: Delimma of Adopting from German Civil Code

我國民法第184條之立法模式乃係繼受德國民法第823條、第826條而訂定，同為三個獨立類型之侵權行為。在現行法之解釋下，我國民法第184條第1項前段保護客體僅及於絕對權，縱亦有見解認為及於法律上所明認之權利，然皆未包含利益，「利益」之保護僅能透過第184條第1項後段、第2項為救濟之途徑，正因如此，保護密度相當有限，要件也相對嚴格，而此等規範模式下，將構成行為人過失致被害人之利益受有損害，而未違反保護他人之法律之重大漏洞。顯見我國既然繼受德國民法之規範體制，當然亦會出現如德國民法上之「瑕疵」。而關於該重大漏洞之解決方法，德國民法已提出之締約上過失及附保護第三人作用契約理論，作為過失侵害利益保護不足之解套方法，簡言之，前者係創立契約責任與侵權責任以外之「第三種責任」；後者則將「利益」之保護回歸於契約責任。

Article 184 of Taiwan Civil Code was adopted from Articles 823 and 826 of German Civil Code, which are three independent types of torts. Interpretation of the current law, establishing the tort liability through the distinction between the infringement on rights and the infringement on interests. Following this distinction, it caused a major loophole that negligently infringes on the interests of others without violating the law that protects others. This paper would explore the ways which German law deals with such cases, including advocator of Culpa in Contrahendo and the protection for the third parties to a contract.