論過失相抵原則於受僱醫師過勞職災民訴之適用──評臺灣高等法院臺南分院一○二年度重勞上字第一號民事判決

Abstract

臺灣高等法院臺南分院一○二年度重勞上字第一號民事判決，是我國第一件過勞醫師請求醫院民事損害賠償勝訴的判決，具有指標性的意義。其跳脫醫師不適用勞基法之框架限制，承認醫師和醫院間為勞動關係，並有職災勞工保護法的適用，肯認醫院造成醫師的過勞，而應負損害賠償責任。然而，於損害額之判定時，卻認定醫師未為體檢等，於健康管理有過失，應就損害之發生負高達65%之責任。與有過失，為我國民法第二一七條所明定，然而，其於職災民訴之適用之際，是否應為限制或修正，我國實務和學說卻鮮少深入地進行探討。本文藉著評釋上開判決，除就判決本身提出相關疑問外，並透過日本法之探討，希望得以釐清與有過失法理與勞工或雇主之健康管理義務間之關係。

The (102) Jhong-Lao-Shang No.1 Decision Rendered by the Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court is the first judicial decision which held that it is the hospital`s responsibility for damages under the Civil Code. It defined the employed doctors as labors and held that the Act for Protecting Worker of Occupational Accidents shall be applicable despite the fact the Labor Standards Act is not applicable. However, an offset based on the employed doctor`s negligence was recognized, and the subject shall be responsible for 65% of the damages due to the improper performance of the duty to care for health. According to Civil Code § 217, Offsets against victims` negligence is recognized in determining the final amount of damages, but whether it shall be limited or modified in a damage suit for an occupational accident is seldom discussed in Taiwan. This thesis not only gives comments on the (102) Jhong-Lao- Shang No.1 Decision Rendered by the Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court, but also discusses the issues aforementioned and does the comparative study on Japan.