近年來，我國食品安全爭議屢傳，就違反食安法規而非法添加、製造之食品對消費者身體健康造成之損害，消保會於塑化劑、大統油事件中，皆曾透過民法、消保法、食安法上之商品責任規定，為消費者提出損害賠償之團體訴訟，然而，在實體上，食用不符合衛生安全法規製造生產之食品，是否可認定必然對人體健康造成損害？具體疾病之發生與規範意義下之損害應如何區別應用？另，消保法上懲罰性賠償金究否由食品製造業者連帶負擔賠償責任？在食安法下，懲罰性賠償金之連帶是否有相異之解釋？在程序上，因疾病發生於醫學判斷上之多因性，使問題食品與身體健康權受侵害間之因果關係舉證陷入困難；而長期食用問題食品卻未罹患疾病者，其健康權之受損又應如何舉證？凡此，為食品安全之損害賠償訴訟中不可避免之核心議題，本文擬以實務判決所遇困境出發，探求食安訴訟下商品責任之解釋與適用。

本文主要就懲罰性賠償金制度所產生之法律爭議及企業經營者、使用他人智慧財產權者等應採行之風險管理措施作一研究。 懲罰性賠償金雖源自於英國，但在美國蓬勃發展，故本文首先就美國懲罰性賠償金制度之內容及其發展過程中所衍生之爭論加以探討；其次，再將我國懲罰性賠償金制度予以定位，並對目前之相關立法加以說明，最後再就該制度實施後所引發之法律爭議---是否違憲？是否造成民事法與刑事法體制之紊亂？過失行為得否課與懲罰性賠償金？懲罰性賠償金是否具可保性等問題加以討論。 懲罰性賠償金制度雖基於保障消費者、智慧財產權所有者、投資大眾、防杜內部交易並確保公平競爭，而對於不法行為人課與懲罰性賠償金，來達到懲罰及嚇阻之效果，但此亦加重了企業經營者或其他個體之責任風險；因此，本文依循風險管理之步驟，逐一就我國現行懲罰性賠償金之立法提出損害防阻、損失抑制及風險理財等風險管理措施以資因應。

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2011年5月臺灣爆發不肖業者將具有毒性之塑化劑添加入合法食品添加物─起雲劑當中，販賣給多家食品業者，用以生產各種食品及飲料，戕害國民健康。惟案件中消費者僅獲賠求償額的兩千分之一，差距甚大，明顯不如預期，更是引發社會諸多撻伐。本論文藉由上述塑化劑案件，探討食品安全消費訴訟消費者求償困境並檢討現行法的缺失與不足，以符合消費者權益保障之宗旨。 文章中首先針對食品安全消費訴訟特性以及我國食品管制上主管機關的權責劃分進行概念性介紹，並就訴訟中消費者可主張的民法、消費者保護法、食品安全衛生管理法上請求權基礎進行要件及爭點說明。其次，就損害賠償之概念及損害進行界定與討論。另由於此類型訴訟，消費者食用問題產品後，多半不會產生立即性身體傷害或臨床病徵，導致訴訟上消費者就其所受之損害難以舉證而敗訴，故本文藉由參酌美國毒物侵權行為訴訟上之損害認定，將損害概念擴張至損害或「損害之虞」，以解決訴訟上消費者損害認定不易的難題。 此外，於因果關係舉證方面，則藉由德國環境責任法、德國基因科技法上之原因推定理論、美國法上市場佔有率責任之因果關係以及日本法上疫學因果關係理論，作為此類型訴訟我國因果關係認定之參考，並就損害賠償範圍、我國懲罰性賠償金制度的引進、目的、重要爭點等析述討論之。最後，本論文藉由實務上判決，觀察現行食品安全衛生管理法第56條法院適用情形，從中檢討現行條文不盡完備之處，並嘗試提出相關修法建議，希冀可作為將來立法者修法之參考。 / In May, 2011 the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration reported that plasticizers, such as: di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and di(iso-nonyl)phthalate (DINP), were illegally added to clouding agents used in foods and several beverages.The endocrine disruptors have been linked to developmental problems with children and pregnant women, etc.This paper would mainly discuss the issues of the reflection of civil liabilities arising from food scandals, particularly focus on the plasticizer food scandal in Taiwan. First, the author gives an overview of consumer litigation of food safety, food administration in Taiwan, and the basic of claim such as the Civil law, the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation as well as the Consumer Protection Law.Secondly, interprets the concept of civil compensationand expand the traditional concept of personal injury to risk of injury (the plaintiff has not manifested any symptoms of disease but may suffer from illness in the future) by referring to toxic tort.Thirdly, illustrates the special rules on causation in the aspect of the environmental liability law, the biotech law and the market share liability to solve the problems of the causation.Fourthly,probes the compensation scope and punitive damages. Finally,by observing court decisions on article 56 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation, the author analyzes the deletion of existing legal norms and suggests a proposal for law amendments.