安全保障義務的解釋論展開

The Interpretive Theory of Safeguard Duty

圍繞《民法典》第1198條；安全保障義務的適用在主體範圍、內容標準、因果關係、補充責任四個方面尚未被完全厘清。立基於本土視野；應結合司法實踐積累的裁判智識形塑安全保障義務的解釋論框架。具體而言；若單純站在第1198條的立場會得出安全保障義務主體射程狹窄的結論；正確的路徑是在《民法典》第1198條與第1165條第1款的互動關係中對安全保障義務的主體範圍加以延展。安全保障義務的內容標準因為概念的抽象性形成法內漏洞；依託本土裁判資源可以提煉出社會危險本身的嚴重性、對社會危險的控制能力、社會活動的營利性、義務相對人特別保護的必要性、安保措施的經濟成本五方面的規範要素；該等要素可以向法官提供論證安全保障義務的指導性觀點。在未盡安全保障義務的因果認定上；出於規範目的的考慮應該放寬評價標準；原則上只要不能排除安全保障措施降低致害的可能性就應肯定因果關係的存在。至於補充責任的適用條件；理論界與司法實務在原因力與第三人主觀樣態之間存在明顯的相左；站在司法實踐的立場；未盡安全保障義務僅僅作為次要原因間接參與致害時才使得安保義務人享有責任承擔的順位利益；否則就應該採取按份責任。

Regarding Article 1198 of the Civil Code, the application of safeguard duty has not been fully clarified in four aspects: subject scope, content standards, causal relationships, and supplementary responsibilities. Based on a local perspective, an interpretive framework for safeguard duty should be formed by combining the accumulated judicial wisdom in judicial practice. Specifically, if we simply stand on the position of Article 1198, we will conclude that the range of the subject of safeguard duty is narrow. The correct path is to extend the scope of the subject of safeguard duty in the interaction between Article 1198 and Article 1165 (1). The content standards of safeguard duty form legal loopholes due to the abstract nature of the concept. By relying on local judicial resources, five normative elements can be extracted, including the severity of social danger itself, the ability to control social danger, the profitability of social activities, the necessity of special protection for obligated parties, and the economic cost of security measures. These elements can provide judges with guiding views on demonstrating security obligations. In the causal determination of unfulfilled safeguard duty, for regulatory purposes, the evaluation criteria should be relaxed. In principle, as long as the possibility of reducing harm caused by security measures cannot be ruled out, the existence of causal relationships should be affirmed. As for the application conditions of supplementary liability, there is a clear contradiction between the theoretical community and judicial practice in terms of causal force and the subjective behavior of third parties. From the perspective of judicial practice, failure to fulfill safeguard duty only allows security obligors to enjoy the priority benefits of responsibility when indirectly participating in harm as a secondary cause. Otherwise, proportionate liability should be adopted.