民法動物占有人侵權責任之比較研究

A Comparative Study on Tort Liability of Animal Possessor in Civil Code

我國民法第190條第1項規定：「動物加損害於他人者，由其占有人負損害賠償責任。但依動物之種類及性質已為相當注意之管束，或縱為相當注意之管束而仍不免發生損害者，不在此限。」法律上課予「動物占有人」損害賠償之責任，傳統上著重在權利主體間之權利及義務思考；然關於「占有人」之認定，事實上也應考慮社會中民眾實際生活如何管領動物，例如家庭飼養、機構收容乃至脫逃等，將影響如何以認定「動物占有人」。侵權行為制度雖不可能完全與物權編（於此涉所有權與占有）分別思考，惟在民法之外亦有動物保護法等特別規定，在制度與制度之間雖容有各自的立法目的，仍須綜合思考以得在單一制度下所獲權益保障之結果合理性。為求更加周全權利主體人與人之間，以及人與作為特殊之動產的「動物」間，於發生侵權行為時之風險分配──確保人們在社會中活動的自由，本文針對常見「動物加損害於他人」之型態、「動物占有人」認定、動物加害行為與被害人損害之「因果關係」、以及動物占有人已依動物種類及性質為「相當注意之管束」之實質內涵等，綜合比較法上日本民法第718條、美國法自嚴格責任至近年重大發展，例如Tracey vs. Solesky案等，回應臺灣民法第190條之適用爭議類型、以切中侵權行為責任制度目的，兼顧鼓勵愛護動物之社會文明，同時也為保障「人」的權利，提高法律適用之可預測性。 The Article 190 of the Civil Code of Taiwan provides that “if injury is caused by an animal, the possessor is bound to compensate the injured person for any injury arising therefrom, unless reasonable care in keeping according to the species and nature of the animal has been exercised, or unless the injury would have been occasioned notwithstanding the exercise of such reasonable care.” Though the law imposes liability for compensation on animal possessors, the legal obligation traditionally emphasizes that the rights and duties between subjects; nonetheless, the way people take care of their pets in the circumstances of feeding with family members, institution shelter and even escaping from these places etc., may play an important role to define “an animal possessor” in modern society. The system of torts in Civil Code may not be applied without the concept of ownership and possession in Part III-- Rights in Rem. Apart from Civil Code, there are some special policies and regulations, which have their own legislative purposes. Yet, we need a comprehensive consideration for reasonable outcomes of right protection under the single system. To ensure people's freedom in social activities, and balance the risk and interests between human and animals, this article is organized logically connected sections. First, I review common types of “damages causes by animals”, the identification of animal possessors, causality between behavior of animal attacking and the injured party, essential connotation of reasonable care according to types and nature of animals. Second, I review relevant legislation and judicial practices from Article 718 of the Japanese Civil Code, as well as substantial changes of strict liability for animals in the U.S. in recent years, such as the Tracey vs. Solesky case, for comparative reference. Finally, I'll bring up proposals for reasonable interpretation of Article 190, which is in accordance with tort purposes and encourages a civilized society with animal well-being consideration. This may not only ensure that human rights are respected and fulfilled but also increase predictability of the application of laws.