English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51631017      Online Users : 761
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148572


    Title: 侵權行為損害賠償之預防目的--以法律實證分析為中心
    The Deterrence Effect of Tort Damages: An Empirical Study via Public Bad Experiment
    Authors: 邵靖惠;翁明宏
    Shao, Jing-huey;Weng, Ming-hung
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 侵權行為;損害賠償;主觀歸責;法律實證;法律實驗;經濟分析;預防目的
    Torts;Damages;Subjective accountability;Legal empirical study;Legal experiment;Economic analysis;Deterrence effect
    Date: 2023-06
    Issue Date: 2023-12-04 16:33:18 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 侵權行為法的兩大功能為損害填補及損害預防，其中損害預防功能係藉由行為規範的確定及損害賠償的制裁，以嚇阻侵害行為；而預防目的隨著時代的演進，愈展現其在損害賠償功能上的必要性。關於達成預防目的之賠償模式，其法律適用及數額決定之法理基礎，在英美法系和歐陸法系國家皆有激烈辯論。以預防目的最明確的懲罰性賠償為例，最常見之批評，在美國即為鉅額的懲罰性賠償金；而關於此類賠償的限制，如美國後續採取建議性質的賠償上限，或是移植該賠償制度的歐陸法系國家，採取實際損害的固定倍數的方式者，惟此等作法，難免有預防效果不足，或欠缺理論支持等質疑。本文透過公共惡賽局為架構的法律實驗方式，結合法律經濟理論，探究不同類型的損害賠償法則，在故意和過失的歸責態樣下，於預防功能的實證效果。本研究發現懲罰性賠償在預防故意侵權行為，有其顯著效果；相對而言，填補性賠償對於預防故意行為之效果不足，而比例上較為適合預防過失侵權行為，如適用懲罰性賠償至過失行為，其正當性恐有疑慮。
    This study is the first effort to simultaneously manipulate subjective status and civil damage rules to test the deterrence effect on human tortious behavior. Using a public bad experiment, significant behavioral influences were identified in participants’ violations related to various damage rules under the intentional and negligent status of the tortfeasor. The results directly show the treatment effects on both factors, which extends previous studies on public good games regarding damage rules. The most insightful findings are: (1) punitive damage is effective in deterring intentional torts while compensatory damage is inadequate, and (2) compensatory damage is marginally most influential for negligent torts while imposing the punitive damage rule on negligent behavior is unjustified. By adopting cost internalization methods as the punitive award, our study provides an explanation and justification for punitive damages for intentional torts as it offers the most efficient deterrence effect and produces the highest social benefit.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 173, 157-226
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023060173003
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202023060173003
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    173-3.pdf4606KbAdobe PDF161View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback