論法定代理人責任之性質與主體範圍──評最高法院103年度台上字第1989號民事判決及其歷審見解

An Analysis of Guardians’ Tortious Liabilities

校園學生間侵害事故社會上時有所聞，實務上案例亦不曾間斷，在一般情形當中被害人就其所受損害大多依據民法第187條第1項前段規定向加害同學及其父母請求連帶損害賠償。然而隨著社會型態之轉變，家庭結構之變革，多數家庭為雙薪家庭，隔代教養之情形亦多有耳聞，甚至在民法增訂意定監護制度後可能係由社會福利機構擔任孩童之法定代理人，基此，有關民法第187條第1項所規定之「法定代理人」此一責任主體範圍究竟為何？除依法律規定具有法定代理人身分者外，是否能涵蓋其他情形，在校園未成年學生間侵害事故案例中，教師與學校是否該當本條之責任主體，更值得進一步討論。為釐清此等責任主體範圍之認定，首先必須探究民法第187條規定所謂法定代理人責任之性質與歸責基礎，本條究竟是為自己行為責任負責，抑或係為他人行為負責，又與過失責任或無過失責任間之關係為何，似均有所爭議，本文擬從民法第187條規定之責任性質出發，探討其歸責理論基礎，並基此論述本條之責任主體範圍，檢討相關實務案例，期能發揮落實本條之規範功能。

Due to the changes in social patterns and family structures, most families are two-income families, intergenerational parenting is often heard, and even after the Voluntary Guardianship System was implemented in 2019, social welfare agencies may be the guardian of children. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the “guardian” under Article 187 of the Civil Code. In the case of an assault between a minor student in school, it is worth further discussing whether the teacher and the school should be the “responsible guardian” under this article. In order to clarify the scope of this liability, it is necessary to argue the reason why guardians are responsible under Article 187 of the Civil Law. This paper intends to explore the theoretical basis of the Guardians’ Tortious Liabilities, and discuss the scope of liability of this Article. Finally, it concluded with the analysis of practical cases occurred in Taiwan.