掛名負責醫師與密醫連帶賠償案：借牌診所負責醫師責任【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Joint Liability between Nominally Supervising Physician and Quacksalver: The Liability of the Physician in Charge for lending the License
本案事實包含具醫師資格者擔任診所負責醫師，卻由不具醫師資格之人執行醫療業務，此時，不具醫師資格之行為人是否當然構成侵權行為？負責醫師又應構成何種型態之侵權行為？其與不具醫師資格之行為人間關係為何？若病家與其中一人和解，是否影響其他債務人應負責任內涵？本文僅擇上開侵權行為責任與多數債務人間責任分擔之議題進行評析。
The issue in this case was about a physician who took the charge of a clinic and was qualified to practice, but the medical practice was run by another one who wasn’t qualified to practice. In this case, does a person who is not qualified to practice medicine constitute a tort? What type of tort could the physician in charge constitute? What was the liability between them? If the family of a patient reconciled with one of them, would it affect the liability the other obligor? The issue about the liability of torts and its sharing between multiple obligors would be the topic in this essay.
070-089
