護理師巡房案：論不作為侵權行為【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Case about Ward Rounding of the Nurse: On the Omission of Tort
一般侵權責任中，依加害行為係積極作為或消極不作為，可區分為「作為侵權行為」或「不作為侵權行為」兩種案型。此項區分涉及侵權責任體系之不同，簡言之，具體案例若定性為「不作為侵權行為」案型，即有判斷「行為人有無作為義務」之特別要件必要。此外，在因果關係之認定，「不作為侵權行為」論理上亦與「作為侵權行為」略有不同。本案第二審判決即臺灣高等法院高雄分院109年度醫上字第5號民事判決（嗣經最高法院111年度台上字第2161號民事裁定以上訴不合法駁回上訴），無論結論或論理內容，均值肯認與贊同，本文擬就其中所涉不作為侵權行為相關問題，進行簡要之國內實務整理及文獻回顧。
The general tort liability can be divided into two types of cases: “the acting tort” or “the omission of tort,” depending on whether the act of aggression is active or passive inaction. This distinction involves the difference of tort liability systems. In short, if a specific case is characterized as an “omission of tort” case, it is necessary to determine the special element of “whether the perpetrator has an obligation to act”. In addition, the way, with which the causality is to be certain, is different silently between the theory of “the omission of tort” and “the acting tort”. The second trial verdict in this case is Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court Civil Judgment of medical appeal No. 5 in 2020 (the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court Civil Judgment No. 2161 in 2022). Both the conclusion and the argumentation are agreed by the author. In this essay would the domestic legal praxis and related literature in respect of the omission of tort and its related issue be analyzed and discussed.
080-100
