美國法上懲罰性賠償金數額分享制度之研究

A Study on the Split-Recovery Punitive Damages System under U.S. Laws

近年來黑心產品致害事件頻傳，故消基會即提出「消費者保護基金」草案，明訂該基金創設上之法源依據及其目的，並規範該基金之經費來源。然儘管該草案立意甚佳，但細究其內容仍有諸多疑慮與商榷之處。是故，因現今美國法上已有若干州施行懲罰性賠償金數額分享法令而實踐如同上開基金之目的，從而本文即研究該國此等數額分享制度，其中包括該制度之公共政策及其實踐疑慮，以及其已涉合憲性爭議的相關判決，尤其是聯邦最高法院於二○○七年Philip Morris USA v. Williams乙案判決後，論者間對該制度存廢與修正上所提出的相關意見。最後，希冀以該國此等制度之實踐經驗為鑑而供我國未來立法上之參考。

Since damaging events caused by defective products have occurred frequently in recent years, the Consumers Foundation proposed the Consumer Protection Fund Draft, which stipulated the legal bases and purposes of creating the fund and also regulates the funds sources of funding. Although the idea of the draft is good, there is still room for doubts and questions concerning its contents. Since certain states in the U.S. already have enacted such split-recovery statutes through carrying out the methods that are similar to the purposes of the funds mentioned above, this thesis, therefore, examines the sharing system of U.S. public policy, its practical concerns, and its relevant decisions challenged by constitutionality. Especially, the study examines the decision for the case of Philip Morris USA v. Williams by the Supreme Court in 2007 and scholarly concerns and studies on the abolition of the system. Finally, it takes the practical experience of these systems as a reference to provide a resource for Taiwans future legislative references.