預見可能性的對象與資訊蒐集義務──從監督過失的案例談起

在判斷行為人是否成立過失犯時，多數學說與實務除了檢討行為人有無違反注意義務，或是其客觀上是否成立客觀歸責以外，亦會判斷行為人主觀上對法益侵害的發生有無「預見可能性」。蓋依照學說見解，若有預見可能性，才可以期待行為人調整自己的行為，以避免危險結果的發生，因此預見可能性是注意義務的前提，於行為人過失判斷上占有不可或缺的地位。

Traditionally, objects of foreseeability include all elements of actus reus. However, in the scenario of negligent supervision, because supervisors cannot always foresee all elements of actus reus, to define the boundary of foreseeability becomes difficult. This difficulty makes it necessary to re-define the boundary of foreseeability. I discuss this topic by comparing relevant theories in Taiwan and Japan. Through a comparative analysis, I found that the expansion of criminal negligence cannot be prevented by simply considering foreseeability as a precondition for the duty of eliminating risky results, in which the duty of gathering information be included. Furthermore, foreseeability should be seen as a component of responsibility to limit the boundary of criminal negligence. Finally, I consider the essential object of foreseeability as a type of concrete social harm. Accordingly, to expand the supervisor’s scope of foreseeability, imposing the duty of gathering information on supervisors is necessary. If this duty is imposed, supervisors’ negligence in collecting sufficient information can be regarded as fulfilling the condition of foreseeability.