酒吧對醉客及酒駕被害人之注意義務初探【本期企劃】 試閱
A Primary Study on Bars’ Duty of Care to Protect Intoxicated Patrons and Victims of Drunk Driving
酒醉會引發諸多社會問題，所以在政策上有討論從源頭予以防止的必要，因此美國數州仍保有酒商供應法的立法，課予酒類供應商對於醉客及其引發酒駕事故之受害人，負有一定之注意義務，將酒醉事故的風險，透過賠償責任予以移轉，以達到防止酒駕的公共利益，而在沒有明文立法的州，也藉由過失侵權的建構，透過注意義務為酒吧責任的創設，提供普通法的解決路徑。此一想法，也影響到澳洲法院，雖也討論酒吧注意義務的問題，但最後還是回歸酒醉者的個人決定與自我負責上。我國的侵權行為法雖是承襲德國法模式，但自交易往來安全義務的引進與在實務上的承認，也引發以此理論探討酒吧責任的空間，但鑑於該理論還是跟自身的場所安全性有關，要擴展成對他人之酒吧的獨立責任，也會面臨如何辨識酒醉及酒醉者自主決定的介入，而有一定的難度，故最終解決之道，還是得要回歸明文立法方式。
Intoxication can lead to various social problems. Therefore, if measures can be implemented to prevent it, especially at the source, some states in the United States still maintain dram shop laws. These laws impose a duty of care on alcohol suppliers towards intoxicated patrons and the victims of accidents they cause. By transferring the risk of intoxication-related risks through liability, these laws aim to serve the public interest in preventing drunk driving. In states without legislation, negligence tort and the duty of care under common law could held bars accountable. This philosophy also influences common law in Australia, where discussions on bars’ duty of care have surfaced but ultimately hinge on the intoxicated individual’s personal decisions and self-responsibility. While Taiwan’s tort law inherits from the Germany Civil Law, introducing and recognizing duty of care (Verkehrspflicht) has sparked discussions on bar responsibilities. However, expanding this into independent bar liability faces challenges due to the identification of the intoxication and the intervention of intoxicated individuals’ autonomous decisions. Therefore, the ultimate resolution may still need an explicit legislature.
031-055
