建物瑕疵之侵權責任－商品自傷的損害賠償

Abstract

本文以商品自傷案件所生的侵權責任作為討論主題。關於建築物瑕疵所生的侵權責任，最高法院認為加害人應依民法第184條第2項規定，負損害賠償責任，高等法院更認為，被害人得依消保法第7條之規定，請求建物出售者負損害賠償責任。本文指出，各國產品責任法採取嚴格責任，其保護對象限於人身或其他財產受害，商品自傷之損害，並非產品責任法保護之客體。關於動產之商品自傷案件，既非消保法關於產品責任之保護範圍，亦非民法侵權責任保護之對象。而不動產瑕疵所生之損害，固非消保法嚴格責任之保護範圍，但基於保護房屋所有人之權利，房屋建造人應依民法侵權責任之規定負賠償責任。至於瑕疵房屋之所有人之請求權基礎，最高法院以民法第184條第2項為依據，本文則認為應以民法第184條第1項後段規定作為被害人之請求權基礎。

The Taiwan Supreme Court holds that the injured party is entitled to claim damages for losses suffered due to a defective building that results in the decrease in value of the building under Article 184 (2) of the Taiwan Civil Code. The high court further declares that the injured party is allowed to claim damages for the defective building based on Article 7 of the Taiwan Consumer Protection Act. These decisions are concerned with the intriguing issue of tort liability for the commodity injury. This paper undertakes a comparative study on the product liability and tort liability on the commodity injury, including US, UK, Germany and Canada laws. Comparative law indicates that the buyer of a product is not allowed to claim damages due to the defect of the products under the consumer protection act. Nonetheless, it is controversial as to whether a buyer of a defective building is entitled to claim compensation on the ground of the tort liability. It is submitted in this paper that the buyer should be allowed to claim damages for defective buildings under tort liability, especially in the event the buildings are destroyed in an earthquake. The ground for the injured party to make such a claim is based not on Article 184 (2) but on the second sentence of Article 184 (1) of the Taiwan Civil Code.