船舶油污染之純粹經濟上損失

Pure Economic Loss due to Ship-Sourced Oil Pollution

侵權法之兩大模式為權利模式及損失模式，海洋污染防治法第33條第1項採損失模式。關於純粹經濟上損失之性質，我國司法實務以利益視之，不得以民法第184條第1項前段請求。英國及美國普通法則將之認屬損害概念，英國以注意義務作為控制機制，而美國採切割式排除法則，原則上排除純粹經濟上損失。關於船舶油污染之純粹經濟上損失，無論相關國際公約、英國或美國法均認包含之，但應以因果關係限制。IPOC基金之求償手冊需以充分緊密的因果關係為限。英國判例認為在因果關係上需符合直接性要件。美國判例則以油污染法之求償範圍包含純粹經濟上損失，但於因果關係之認定尚無定見。海洋污染防治法第33條第1項之損害包含純粹經濟上損失，並得以直接性要件限制損害之範圍。

The prime models of torts law include right model and loss model. Paragraph 1, Article 33 of the Marine Pollution Control Act (’’MPCA’’) amounts to loss model. Regarding the nature of pure economic loss (’’PEL’’), under the legal practices in Taiwan, it shall be treated as interest, and not be claimed in accordance with the first sentence of paragraph 1, article 184 of Taiwan Civil Code. Under the English and American common law, it shall amount to the concept of loss. Duty of care is the control device of PEL under the English common law, while PEL is excluded in principle under the American common law. Regarding PEL due to oil pollution from ships, it is protected under the relevant international conventions, the UK and US legal regimes. However, it will (or shall) be limited by the causation between pollution and loss. It shall be satisfied with sufficiently close link of causation requirement by the Claim Manuel of IPOC Fund, while with the direct requirement under the UK case law. As for the American law, it is unclear. Under Taiwan legal regime, PEL shall be protected in accordance with the Paragraph 1, Article 33 of MPCA, and the causation shall be fulfilled with the direct requirement in order to restrict the scope of compensation.