保險事故發生後，針對事故之原因，特別是火災保險，往往欠缺再現性，無法完整還原事故原貌。只可透過後續災因調查，嘗試建構出火災可能發生之原因。也因為火災保險上述之特性，事故發生之後，被保險人以及保險人針對該事故是否係屬保單承保範圍或該系爭事故究應由何造負擔其舉證責任，產生極大的爭議。此外，倘若依照傳統民事訴訟法之舉證責任分配原則，尤其在「列舉式保險單」之保險爭議方面，恐對保險人有失公平。因此，本文擬從火災保險之觀點出發，透過「保險舉證責任之三階段判斷流程」，探討列舉式保險單之舉證責任分配問題。 首先，在第一階段審查方面，透過合理期待原則之概念，列舉式保險單原則上由被保險人負擔舉證責任。 其次，在第二階段審查方面，尚需考量兩造之經濟能力、社會地位以及專業能力加以綜合判斷。亦即，被保險人係屬「法人」，特別是資力足夠、社經地位高以及專業能力強的「大型法人」，無庸特別保護，由被保險人負擔其舉證責任；惟被保險人為「個人」或是資力不足、社經地位偏低以及專業能力較弱的「小型法人」，縱使為列舉式保險單亦應該再課予保險人額外之舉證責任，而進入第三階段之審查。 再者，在第三階段審查方面，基於對價平衡原則，倘保險人能舉證系爭事故原因，已於保險費計算時明確扣除。此時，被保險人主張保險事故係屬列舉式保險單承保範圍時，必須先行負擔舉證責任。 最後，透過上述三階段判斷流程，可明確區分「列舉保險」舉證責任之歸屬，以避免舉證責任之不利益過度偏向保險人，而造成危險共同團體之整體利益受到危害。

刑事訴訟制度具有兩大目的，分別是發現真實以及保障被告人權，二者不可偏廢，不可為了發現真實而犧牲被告人權之保障，亦不得為了保障被告之人權，忽視真實之發現。 被告在憲法上受有無罪推定原則之保障，原則上無須證明自己無罪，舉證責任落在身為控方的檢察官身上，檢察官須就被告之犯罪事實予以證明至無合理懷疑之程度，使法官依據其所舉證之內容依自由心證予以衡酌，如未能形成超越合理懷疑之心證門檻時，依照無罪推定原則，即應對被告諭知無罪判決。 目前我國法已明文肯認無罪推定原則的保障，除了被告得因此享有相關之保障外，負責追訴犯罪的檢察官，身為控方，亦應善盡其舉證責任，當使法官形成超越合理懷疑的心證時，方能推翻對被告的無罪推定，對被告諭知有罪判決，然而，控方應負舉證責任縱然作為原則，但不可否認的是，本文認為仍有存在例外的空間，故試圖從舉證責任之架構釐清在無罪推定原則的制度下是否有轉換、調整之空間。 站在當事人對等的天平上，筆者認為立法者考量到特殊案件類型之需求，可以透過立法的方式將某些事項的提出證據責任轉換到被告身上，但說服責任則不可以移轉之，因為被告在訴訟上仍受有不自證己罪原則之保障，要將舉證責任予以移轉，筆者以為歐洲人權法院所形塑之標準可資參考，當爭點具有一定的重要性，且被告的防禦權未完全被剝奪時，當檢察官已就一定犯罪事實予以舉證時，即可將舉證責任轉換到被告身上，如此可使呈現在法庭上的證據越來越多，亦可使真實更容易被發現。 本文以經濟犯罪作為檢討舉證責任轉換可行性之主軸，並以特別背信罪與內線交易作為檢討之適例，試圖檢驗本文架構出的判準之可行性。然礙於篇幅有限，故僅以商業判斷法則及內線交易之抗辯事由作為本文檢討之核心。

傷害保險之機能不但隨著現代社會之需要而變化，而傷害保險事業也可說已經蓬勃發展。然而，有關傷害保險之爭訟日益增多，尤其在保險事故的認定上，更是屢屢出現各種爭議，並逐漸有類型化之趨勢。 為此，立法院於民國九十二年一月二十二日，增訂保險法第一百三十一條第二項規定：「前項意外傷害，指非由疾病引起之外來突發事故所致者。」徵其目的，乃在於透過法律位階明文定義傷害事故，以期定紛止息，然在其他保險先進國家，此種立法例極為鮮見。 有鑑於傷害保險屬於保障人身意外傷害事故之重要險種，在傷害保險事故之認定上卻爭訟不斷，而上述最新之明文立法方式，是否真能解決紛爭，即有待檢驗。此外，在某些案例中，醫學鑑定報告及法醫學上的判斷雖不可欠缺，但在保險事故的認定與判斷方面，法律整理工作更是前提要件，例如保險事故之要件、舉證責任之歸屬等等。本文即欲引介並檢視其他保險先進國家對意外傷害認定爭議問題之處理方式，以作為我國處理相同爭議之借鏡。

我國稅務訴訟案件繫屬於行政法院，並佔行政法院約四成左右。因此若能達成稅務訴訟案件訴訟經濟之效果，對行政法院或訴訟代理人而言均相當重要。惟欲使法官清楚訴訟代理人對稅務案件的陳述重點需要某程度的訴訟技巧，才能配合法院達成訴訟經濟，並且達到會計事務所替當事人妥適處理個案的目標。本論文藉由重要議題之問卷訪問，尋求訴訟代理人律師及會計師與法官間順利溝通的平臺。本論文以法院行政救濟實務為主要討論架構，篩選數個重要議題，例如稅務訴訟案件個案須認定與查證何事項（包含會影響法官形成心證之因素、稅務訴訟案件之舉證責任及稅務訴訟案件法律適用與法律解釋方式等），並針對個案內容訴狀之撰寫方式，依照法院審究重點方向，以理則學的邏輯論述方式，討論稅務訴訟案件之形式與實體應著重之內涵，目的在提供實務界行政訴訟之訴訟代理人參考，以利進行稅務訴訟案件。 本文文末另對稅務行政訴訟制度提出改革建議，諸如：增設訴訟輔導科以便利人民行使訴訟權；並為達成訴訟經濟，法官與稅務訴訟代理人均加強稅法會計知識之專業訓練課程；建議設置專業稅務訴訟法院與研議專家參審制等，作為改進稅務行政訴訟制度之參考。 / Tax litigation is in the administrative court in Taiwan, and occupies the administrative court approximately about 40%. If we can achieve effect of the tax affairs lawsuit economy, it is quite important to the administrative court or the legal representative (including lawyer and certified public accountant). We wants to achieve the lawsuit economy, and achieves the goal of the Public accounting firms for the litigant case, must let judges clear legal representative statements’ key point of the tax cases, those need lawsuit skill. This essay aim to those important topic to design questionnaire, By judges、attorney at law and accountant fill in the questionnaire, seeks between legal representative (attorney at law and accountant) and judge the communication platform. The thesis select several important topics, discuss composition in view of the case content, as well as the court investigates the key direction and how to using the logical elaboration way to describe dispute issues. In order to help judge and legal representative carries on the tax litigation cases. Finally this paper puts forward the reform proposal of tax administrative lawsuit legal system, such as: establishment Tax administrative lawsuit counseling branch, specialist training curriculum of Tax and accounting, the suggestion establishment specialized lawsuit court, the expert participates in the trial……etc.

隨著社會變遷，近一二十年來，我國醫療糾紛有大幅增加之現象，而經由媒體的報導，醫療糾紛在我國亦經常成為眾所矚目、備受爭議的社會焦點。由於醫療行為所導致的損害，直接侵害病人之身體權、健康權、甚至生命權，對於病人及其家屬生活所造成之影響，難謂非為鉅大，故醫療糾紛之妥善處理，實係吾人從事醫療法律之研究者，應予正視並深入探討之議題。 我國醫療糾紛之處理，向以刑事訴訟為主要之救濟途徑，惟晚近醫界、法界均已達成共識，認為醫療糾紛應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。惟吾人若欲藉由民事法律關係妥善處理醫療糾紛，則須注意醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，亦即，因醫病雙方專業知識上之落差，導致雙方在民事程序上處於武器不平等之地位。為衡平此一武器不平等，我國實務上部分法官在審理醫療民事訴訟時，曾打破傳統民事過失歸責原則，將消費者保護法無過失責任與民法第191條之3一般危險責任之規定適用於醫療行為，惟自民國93年醫療法第82條第2項修正之後，該法既規定「醫療機構及其醫事人員因執行業務致生損害於病人，以故意或過失為限，負損害賠償責任。」邇近之實務判決遂多採醫療行為過失責任之見解，也多排除民法第191條之3之適用。我國醫療訴訟醫病爭執之重點，乃於近年由實體法之無過失責任之採擇與否，轉換至程序法之舉證責任分配。 於醫療訴訟等現代型訴訟事件中，被害人時常發生舉證上之困難，倘若依照僵化固定的舉證責任分配規則，則不免有失公平正義。因此，舉證責任分配於醫療訴訟上應如何操作方屬適當，實為醫療民事訴訟中值得觀察的重點所在。基於上述之問題意識，本論文的研究架構共分為七章，其內容綱要如下： 第一章 緒論：闡釋說明研究動機，並指明目前民事醫療糾紛事件之問題重心在於「程序法」，特別係在「舉證責任之分配」。進而說明本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究範圍與研究方法。 第二章 醫療糾紛之發生及其處理：本章由醫療糾紛之發生談起，進而說明醫療糾紛之法律關係，探討不同法領域下醫療提供者違反義務時之法律責任，包括民事責任、刑事責任及行政責任等，並論證醫療糾紛實應回歸至以民事程序為主之處理模式。最後，介紹醫療糾紛發生後，國內外現今法制上之醫療糾紛處理機制，並分析其優缺點。 第三章 醫療糾紛之民事法律關係與醫療民事訴訟之特殊性：本章聚焦於醫療糾紛之民事法律關係，探討醫療提供者之契約責任、醫療無因管理與醫療提供者之侵權責任等。同時，討論醫療民事訴訟之特殊性，分析醫療民事訴訟被害人舉證困難之原因，並分析加重醫療提供者民事責任之法理基礎、以及過度加重醫療提供者民事責任所可能導致之反效果。 第四章 民事訴訟舉證責任分配之學說：按我國關於民事舉證責任之立法明文，係規定於民事訴訟法第277條：「當事人主張有利於己之事實者，就其事實有舉證之責任。但法律別有規定，或依其情形顯失公平者，不在此限。」學者乃認為，在我國法制下，所謂舉證責任分配法則係一總體概念，而可區分為「舉證責任分配一般原則」與「舉證責任分配減輕」二者，而以前者為原則，後者為例外。本章即由舉證責任之基礎觀念出發，藉由介紹國內外之學說，而分別處理「舉證責任分配之一般原則」與「舉證責任分配之減輕」等概念。 第五章 醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配規則之具體適用：本章集中討論醫療民事訴訟之舉證責任。本章前半段介紹醫療民事訴訟舉證責任分配之一般規則、以及比較法上(包括德國、美國與日本)醫療糾紛舉證責任減輕之具體規則，後半段則分析我國實務操作醫療糾紛舉證責任分配之問題。本文一共歸納出實務判決於適用舉證責任分配時共六個問題，並分別找出判決加以闡釋。於本章末，則提出將醫療糾紛類型化，應有助於解決我國實務之問題。 第六章 醫療糾紛之類型化與舉證責任分配體系之建構：本章先試從「法學思維」、「醫學思維」、以及「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」出發，分別建立三套操作模組，以將醫療糾紛類型化，並建構其各別之舉證責任分配體系。關於純粹由「法學思維」或「醫學思維」所建立之操作模組，本文將分析其操作上之侷限，而針對本文所建議「綜合醫學思維與法學思維」之操作模組，亦將於各醫療糾紛分類，舉實務案例諸例實際操作之，以驗證本文所建議操作流程之可行性。章末則另提出法院於適用舉證責任分配規則時，其他與客觀舉證責任分配無直接相關，但應予考量之事項，以助於更正確地適用舉證責任分配規則。 第七章 結論、建議與展望：綜合前開章節討論，針對醫療民事爭訟程序中之舉證責任分類體系與操作模式，做出總結。並提出其他相關建議，以終極落實醫療需求者憲法上基本權之保障。 / The number of malpractice claims filed in Taiwan against physicians has increased significantly in the recent decades. Medical malpractice litigations are characterized by a huge gap in medical knowledge between physicians and patients, leading to an unequal status between both parties in the trials. To ensure that the principle of equality of arms is upheld in civil procedures, the courts applied the strict liability embodied in Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 191-3 of the Civil Code to malpractice cases. However, since the amendment and promulgation of Article 82 of the Medical Care Act, there has been a consensus that strict liability is no longer applicable in medical litigations, and negligence becomes an essential element for establishing the liability of medical practitioners. In addition to modifying liability rules, an alternative for achieving equality of arms is to relieve the plaintiffs from the burden of proof. However, the burden of proof should be adjusted with precaution, because an excessive shift might contribute to defensive medicine. Accordingly, this study aims to standardize the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes. The thesis is composed of the following seven chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the background of the present study, with a special emphasis on the pivotal role of the burden of proof in medical litigations. Also delineated in this chapter are the objectives and methodology of the present study. Chapter 2 The occurrence and resolution of medical malpractice disputes: In this chapter, the incidence of medical injury and medical malpractice is discussed first, followed by an analysis of the civil, criminal, and administrative liabilities of medical professionals. The plethora of resolutions for settling medical malpractice disputes are summarized at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3 Civil liabilities of medical malpractice and characteristics of medical litigations: This chapter focuses on the civil liabilities of medical malpractice, which arise from failure to undertake contractual duties or tort liabilities. The characteristics of medical litigations, such as the unequal status in arms between plaintiffs and defendants and the difficulties in concluding negligence or deciphering causation, are discussed in the second half of the chapter. Chapter 4 Theories and rules in allocating the burden of proof: The allocation of the burden of proof is determined according to Article 277 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure: A party bears the burden of proof with regard to the facts which he/she alleges in his/her favor, except either where the law provides otherwise or where the circumstances render it manifestly unfair. Consequently, in principle, the burden of proof is allocated according to the “Normentheorie,” with specific rules applied to ease the plaintiff’s burden of proof under exceptional and unfair circumstances. Chapter 5 Rules for allocating the burden of proof in medical litigations: German, American, and Japanese rules for allocating or relieving plaintiffs from the burden of proof in medical litigations are introduced. The current problems in applying these rules to medical litigations in Taiwan are inspected. The solution to these problems relies on a precise classification of medical malpractice disputes. Chapter 6 Establishing the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof by classifying medical malpractice disputes: Three models for allocating the burden of proof are created on the basis of three classification systems: classification from a legal perspective, classification from a medical perspective, and classification from a combined medical-and-legal perspective. A comparison of these three models reveals that the last might be the best algorithm. Specific tips for an accurate application of this algorithm are also provided. Chapter 7 Conclusions: This chapter highlights the importance of an appropriate allocation of the burden of proof in medical litigations, as well as the algorithm for allocating the burden of proof established in the present study. Also included are suggestions on how to ameliorate Taiwan’s medical litigation system in the future.

本論文所研究者係一特殊之間接證明，所謂間接證明，乃證據法則中舉證方式之一種，其特殊之處，則須配合經驗法則之運用。在不同程度之經驗法則運用下，間接證明可以區分出不同之種類。如果存在典型事象經過蓋然性之經驗法則，而使法院推定某一待證事實之存在時，即使系爭事實並未被具體明確的證明，亦不違法。此與一般之間接證明就有所區別，因為依據特殊的間接證明，某種程度上，事實之認定仍然值得信賴，進而達到舉證責任減輕，或者使法官避免為真偽不明判決之效果。 這樣特殊之間接證明，在德國法上有「表見證明」，在日本法上有「暫時推定」，在英美法上有「事實說明自己」，以上特殊之證據法則都係從判例法上發展而成的，可見此種特殊之間接證明有存在之意義與必要性。本論文即針對相關之問題與爭議提出整理與討論，並研究相關制度在我國實務上之發展情形，希冀能為民事程序法上之證據活動，提供一具有安定性之規則與方向去使用相關之制度，同時達到追求個案正義之目的。 綜上所述，本文將以表見證明為研究之核心，試從間接證明、舉證責任之分配、自由心證、事實上推定以及實體法規範體系等角度，探討表見證明於我國證據法上之定位(請參酌第二章、第三章、第四章)；同時以英美法上之事實說明自己原則作為比較之對象(請參酌第五章)；並且說明實務上在特殊之現代案件類型中，運用相關制度之問題與實益(請參酌第六章)，期能探求表見證明制度於我國證據法上之適當性、適用依據、適用範圍並類型化個案；最後，將實務判決中運用經驗法則之用語與表見證明制度之要件、效果等相互對照，以統整回顧整本論文之研究成果(請參酌第七章)。

證明度係法院認定事實之標準，其為法院獲得確信心證所必須跨越之最低心證限度。由此觀之，證明度係法院審判過程中，心證活動之重心之一，其亦與當事人間之舉證活動密不可分。關於此議題，分別屬於英美法系與大陸法系之不同國家間，因其各自有其不同之訴訟構造與制度設計，以及源自各自著重之民事訴訟目的觀有所差異，而各自發展出不同制度之設計。因此，於觀察、討論證明度議題時，難以輕易得出一絕對是或非之結論，相反的，一國採取何種證明度制度，往往與該國之制度設計及其基本理念相關。故而，進行證明度之相關研究時，宜一併探求該制度下之背景與其設計理念，並予以尊重，而非堅持一截然之對或錯之結論，如此，對於促成不同制度間之對話即有所助益，更利於彼此相互參考、截長補短。

本研究以「我國司法判決之敘事分析初探―目標可贖回遠期契約(TRF)爭議為例」，聚焦於法庭活動之司法敘事，透過對民事判決書之文本分析，探討原告及被告如何就爭議事件進行對己有利之敘事策略與方式，以及法官如何於判決書中就其認定之法律事實與因果推論撰寫判決。 本研究發現，基於「舉證責任分配原則」及「訴訟書狀撰寫規定」，原告、被告及法官之司法敘事應可區分為「故事」及「論述」二者。其中常見「夾敘夾議」文體，係為認定「法律事實」所作之論述，但常忽略提出具有連貫性且符合邏輯推論之法律事實。 而當法律爭訟發生時，雙方當事人需將自己認定之事實分以「故事」及「論述」讓法官有興趣聽、聽得懂並相信所說為實，如此才能贏得訴訟。因而「敘事」對當事人之攻防與判決書的事實建構益顯重要，司法敘事策略與方式及其意義與價值於焉產生。 / The purpose of this study is to conduct an exploratory analysis on the narratives in Taiwan’s judicial judgments by using examples of dispute cases on Target Redemption Forwards (TRF). Analyses are conducted on texts of civil judgments in order to understand how plaintiffs and defendants respectively develop their strategies and methodologies of narratives for winning cases, and how judges narrate the legal facts that they affirm as causes and consequences in their verdicts. It was discovered in the study that, based on the "principles of distribution of the burden of proof" and the "regulations on the drafting of litigation pleadings," judicial narratives made by plaintiffs, defendants and judges can be classified into two parts, namely "story" and "discourse." A frequently used form of writing, "narration interspersed with comments," is normally made for the purpose to affirm "legal facts." When a legal dispute takes place, the parties concerned are required to provide narratives (stories and discourses) in the court, including interpretation of the facts that they affirm by using relevant evidences. In order to win the case, however, the narrator must ensure that such narratives are interesting, understandable and persuasive to the judges. "Narratives," therefore, play important roles for constructing the facts by the two parties and for preparing the court verdicts. The strategies and methodologies used for judicial narratives are then of significant meanings and values.

近年來有關醫療法律糾紛案件有逐漸增加之趨勢，本文嘗試藉由實證分析，剖析目前實務與學理上之不同見解，簡要提出個人淺見。於實證分析前，本論文先就文獻理論作簡略之論述，首要說明醫療行為與醫療糾紛之相關概念，以界定醫師或醫療機構對其醫療行為應負之責任。並從實體法上論述醫療過失民事責任之基礎及其內涵，如醫療契約責任、醫療侵權責任、消保法與醫療法之適用，以及醫療過失之因果關係等。次就程序法上探討民事醫療訴訟舉證責任分配之基本原則，同時就美國法與德國法有關醫療過失舉證責任分配的調整於我國實務上之運用，作概略分析及探討。再者，鑑於法官於具體個案中判斷醫療糾紛之相關要件，往往需將訴訟資料送請醫療專業機構加以鑑定，因此，本文亦加以說明我國醫療鑑定制度運作之現況，並據此指出現行醫療糾紛鑑定問題之所在。 最後，本文就最高法院民事案件，分別從醫療糾紛判決背景資料之「年度」、「醫療機構層級」、「科別」、「上訴人」與「上訴結果」，以及醫療糾紛審判實務，如「醫療過失」、「因果關係的認定」、「民事責任請求權基礎及舉證責任之分配情況」、「告知義務」、「醫療鑑定在醫療糾紛應用」，進行實證分析，並依實證數據成果，提出「醫療科別屬性與醫療糾紛案件量多寡密切攸關」、「法院對於醫師在個案是否盡注意義務，應以理性醫師之注意標準綜合評價」、「針對醫療訴訟特性，適度分配醫病雙方之舉證責任」、「宜建立醫療傷害補償基金制度」、「醫事人員確切履行告知說明義務」、「健全現行病歷表之相關問題」、「關於醫療糾紛鑑定實務」暨「透過消保法填補醫療（院）組織疏失之責任」等八項結論及建議，以供實務與學術研究者未來對於醫療糾紛訴訟案件研析時之參考。 / Recently, legal cases concerning medical dispute have a tendency to increase gradually. This article tries to explore different viewpoints between practice and academic theory by empirical analysis and then briefly indicates some of my humble views. Before doing the empirical analysis, this article will briefly introduce the related literatures and theories. Firstly, explains related concepts between medical behavior and medical dispute to define the liability that doctor and medical institution should bear because of their medical behaviors. Then, discuss the basis and connotation of the civil liability for medical malpractice from the substantive law viewpoint, such as the liability for medical contract, medical tort liability, the implementation of the Consumer Protection Law and the Medical Care Act and the causality from the medical malpractice etc. Secondly, this article will discuss the basic principles of allocation of burden of proof for civil medical dispute from the procedural law viewpoint and in the same time, briefly analyze and research that whether it is appropriate to adopt the allocation of burden of proof for medical malpractice from American and German law in our own practice. Furthermore, respecting the fact that for judges to make their decisions in particular medical dispute cases, they always have to send action materials to professional medical institutes for identification, thus, this article also wants to explain the current situation of implementation of our medical identification system, and points out the problems of current medical dispute identification system accordingly. Lastly, this article will proceed empirical analysis according to the Year, Levels of the medical institutions, Divisions, Appellant, Result of Appeal from the background of the verdicts of the civil medical dispute cases awarded by the Supreme Court and according to the medical malpractice, the determination of the causality, the condition of basis of civil title of claiming and allocation of burden of proof, obligation of informing, medical identification in the medical dispute from the medical dispute trial practice. Base upon these results, this article indicates eight conclusions and suggestions for reference for the active participants and academic researchers in future medical dispute lawsuits: the attribution of the medical care division and the number of the medical dispute cases are closely related, court should do omnibus assessment using the standard of due diligence as a rational doctor to determine whether a doctor fulfill his duty of care in a specific case, with the particularity of medical actions in mind, appropriately allocate the burden of proof between doctor and patient, it is better to establish the compensation foundation system for medical damage, medical personnel should literally perform their obligation of informing, to refine the problems of current medical record, things concerning medical dispute identification practice and using the Consumer Protection Act to fill the vacancy that caused by the negligence of the medical institutions.

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.