英文摘要 |
Due to the growth of science and technology, the danger of human work and activities has increased. To protect the victims comprehensively, various countries had formulated the law of dangerous activities liability. In 1999, Taiwan also formulated article 191-3 of Civil Code, which is about the responsibility for dangerous work or activities of the operator of a dangerous enterprise. The person responsible in article 191-3 of Civil Code is generally considered to be the operator of a dangerous enterprise, however, people who actually do the dangerous work or activities are mostly the employee or the undertaker of the dangerous enterprise operator. When the danger occurs, the dangerous enterprise operator may claims internal compensation from the employee according to article 188 paragraph 3 of Civil Code, or claims internal compensation from the undertaker according to the contract of hire of work. Should the right of internal compensation of the dangerous enterprise operator be restricted? If we allow the dangerous enterprise operator to claim internal compensation from the employee or the undertaker, there seems to be a suspicion of transferring the responsibility for dangerous work or activities, which should be undertaken by the dangerous enterprise operator, to the employee or the undertaker| however, if the right of internal compensation is restricted, we will violate the general principle that the person who caused the damage should be ultimately liable. This article explores the liability in article 191-3 of Civil Code, and believes that the right of internal compensation of dangerous enterprise operators should not be restricted, but the amount of their claims should be limited. Article 217 of Civil Code should be applied by analogy to determines the internal liability ratio between the dangerous enterprise operator and the employee or the undertaker, and the dangerous enterprise operator can only claim internal compensation from the employee or the undertaker by their internal liability ratio. |