其他相關案例分享
<鄰居一直發出噪音擾人清夢怎麼辦?我可以求償嗎?

現代社會大樓林立,住戶間比鄰而居,在家裡聽到樓上樓下、左鄰右舍鄰居發出的聲音,是很稀鬆平常的事。如果噪音是發生在白天、聲音不大、頻率不高也就算了;但如果下班後,正打算翹個二郎腳看個電視,卻還要忍受鄰居經常發出擾人的噪音,甚至打擾到睡眠,實在是很令人抓狂。   因此,很多人常問「律師,鄰居半夜一直在施工(或是狗叫、運動、唱KTV等各種原因…族繁不及備載請自行代入),吵的我睡不著,該怎麼辦?我可以求償嗎?」   實務上因為噪音而提起的訴訟案例非常多,但是敗訴的案例居多,當中的關鍵就在於證據保全有沒有做好,這是非常基本卻很重要的事。   首先,關於鄰居的行為是否已達到侵害居住安寧的程度,參考現在的法院見解,法院會審酌當地環境、建築物之情況,以發出的聲響是否超越「一般人社會生活所能容忍之客觀標準」認定。   但要如何證明鄰居發出的聲響已經超過「一般人社會生活所能容忍之客觀標準」呢?以下舉幾個常見的例子:   1.向各縣市政府環保局檢舉,由環保局作成實際檢測噪音分貝的紀錄   這是最直接有效的,因為有客觀數據,可以佐證發出的噪音是否有超出管制數值。   2. 自行委託專門測量噪音分貝的公司測量   這也是有力的佐證,理由同上(但因為是私人企業作成的報告,效果恐怕不如環保局這類公部門的檢測紀錄)。   3.自己在家拿分貝計測量並錄影或錄音   效果很差,只能當佐證,因為你無法證明錄影/音中的聲音來源是來自於鄰居。   4.曾向管委會或警察機關等反應的紀錄,或找人作證   效果更差了,因為無法證明聲音實際大小、發出來源等等,充其量只能證明曾有人聽過這類聲響,或是你曾經有向相關人反應有噪音這件事。   如果已經可以蒐集到鄰居發出超過「一般人社會生活所能容忍之客觀標準」的噪音,接下來要提出可以證明你確實因為噪音影響居住安寧,精神痛苦而可以請求慰撫金的事實,例如診斷證明書。   以上一點心得,希望對深受噪音困擾的你/妳有所幫助。     參考判決: 臺灣桃園地方法院101年度訴字第264號判決 臺灣桃園地方法院104年度訴字第222號判決 臺灣高等法院102年度上易字第1057號判決 臺灣高等法院103年度上易字第617號判決 臺灣新北地方法院105年度訴字第1709號判決 臺灣橋頭地方法院107年度簡上字第25號判決      

▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則

assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而,球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年,一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害,進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用,同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷,米勒棒球場(密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場)並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場,一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡,離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事理的賽車在比賽中系極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中,誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. The exception: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds.   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.    

▲蘇狀師談「自承風險」原則

assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket: Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. The exception: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds.   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated. Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.    

▲蘇狀師談侵權行為(assumption of risk)

assumption of risk 自承風險   assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而,球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年,一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害,進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用,同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷,米勒棒球場(密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場)並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場,一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡,離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中,誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇,其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品,其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來,你將會發現自承風險的聲明,這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔,當選擇觀看賽事時,觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席,同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而,在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”,有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失,例如: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當,例如護網毀損或被劃開,會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形,適用酒類供應商責任法,假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客,造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.  

物之瑕疵擔保.給付遲延

民法物之瑕疵擔保責任、給付遲延責任 作者:周紫涵律師 案例事實: 黃蓉公司向歐陽鋒公司購買製袋機,欲轉賣西班牙之公司,然歐陽鋒公司遲延交貨一個月,迨交貨後將該產品運至西班牙之途中時,黃蓉突然接到西班牙公司倒閉之消息,無法受領該機器,因此黃蓉只好將該機器寄存在西班牙當地之倉庫,迨一段時間尋找到另外買主為法國公司後,黃蓉再將該貨物運送至法國公司;詎料該機器後來發生故障,因此法國公司先自行付費修繕該機器,再將費用扣除應支付黃蓉公司之貨款,故黃蓉公司在台灣向歐陽鋒之公司求償? 法律問題: 涉及是否可歸責於歐陽鋒公司給付遲延責任,應對黃蓉之公司負損害賠償責任? 涉及歐陽鋒公司是否應對黃蓉公司負物之瑕疵擔保損害賠償責任? 處理情形: (一) 由於出賣人歐陽鋒公司是否給付遲延?法律上係由 歐陽鋒公司負舉證責任,若歐陽鋒公司未能證明有正 當理由才會給付遲延時,則黃蓉公司就這部分較易獲 得勝訴判決;然本事件法官並不從這點下去審理,卻 從該機器是否有物之瑕疵著手審理,此時出賣人歐陽 鋒之公司是否要負物之瑕疵擔保責任?就必須由黃 蓉公司負證明之責,依一般實務之作法,會命該機器 交付鑑定;然該機器身在法國,無法命國內之鑑定機 關鑑定,因此黃蓉公司就將該機器送至法國歐盟指定 之機關鑑定,其鑑定報告亦認為該機器諸多部分存在 有瑕疵;然法官卻質疑歐盟之鑑定結果可否適用於西 班牙之公司,因為這部機器本來要賣到西班牙,應該 適用西班牙之鑑定結果。身為黃蓉公司之律師,必須 要一直說明這部機器存在如何之瑕疵,這當然涉及製 袋機比較專業之領域,因此我非常努力向黃蓉請教該 機器各部分瑕疵之原因,還當場拿一個垃圾袋向法官 做說明,其實這個法官很認真,前幾次審理我們這件 案子時,常常花費數個鐘頭,常常上午10點左右之庭, 開到下午3、4點,大家都餓著肚子開庭,這位法官連 一次廁所都沒上,仍然中氣十足,令人十分佩服。起初 黃蓉認為我方為何要說明這麼多種事項,而歐陽鋒卻 以逸待勞,不用做什麼說明,對我頗有微詞,我知道黃 蓉雖然武功高強;但並不懂法律,我也沒有和他計 較;然黃蓉卻不知我方依法律必須要負舉證責任,本 來就比較困難,所幸黃蓉還是很努力配合我提出我所 要之資料。 (二)就在我缉而不捨努力找尋證據之下,終於讓我找到雙       方來往之其中一封EMAIL中,歐陽鋒不自覺地講到一       句話,這句話最後卻成為華山論劍比武勝出之關鍵,       因為這句話可當成歐陽鋒在法律上之「自認」,其後       之舉證責任就倒置到歐陽鋒身上,此時局勢大變,黃       蓉就趁勝追擊,最後將歐陽鋒打得落花流水,俯首稱       臣,當然法官就判黃蓉為武林盟主(勝訴),對方因為       顏面掃地,亦放棄上訴之機會,這時黃蓉就誠心地向       我舉起一個大拇指表示勝利之手勢,由衷地感謝我這       位北丐師父。 (三)以後黃蓉不管武林大小事情,皆會找我這位師父商量,         我也傳授他不少武功秘笈。