承租人自殺致房屋成為凶宅之損害賠償責任──最高法院一○四年度台上字第一七八九號判決評釋

The Liability of an Inauspicious House Caused by Its Tenant’s Suicide: Comments on Judgment Tai-Shan-Zi No.1789 (Supreme Court, 2015)

本文就承租人於承租房屋內自殺致房屋成為凶宅的損害賠償問題，評論以最高法院一○四年度台上字第一七八九號判決為主的歷審法院判決見解。本文發現，以目前多數學說與實務見解，出租人欲依侵權責任規定請求損害賠償，困難重重，不是可能以「未侵害房屋所有權」為由，排除民法第一八四條第一項前段規定的適用，就是可能以「未背於善良風俗」或「不具有故意」為由，否定民法第一八四條第一項後段規定的侵權責任成立。此一保守謹慎的立場，限縮侵權責任規範功能，造成不負責、不賠償的結果，是否符合侵權責任法應該追求實現的功能或價值？值得反省。

Focusing on the liability of an inauspicious house caused by its tenant’s suicide, this article analyzes the Judgment Tai-Shan-Zi No. 1789 (Supreme Court, 2015) and those of the lower instances, and concludes that under existing theories and practices, lessor’s tort-based damage claims are difficult to be established. Neither may the former part of Article 184, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code be applied due to lack of “house ownership infringement” nor may the latter part due to lack of “violation of moral rules” or “intention”. It is debatable that whether this conservative attitude, limiting the damage claims and resulting in a “no responsibility, no compensation” result, is consistent with the functions and value of tort law.