其他相關案例分享
▲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「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。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: 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.    

<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      

▲蘇狀師勝訴案例

新北地方法院108年度國字第23號國家賠償事件,本人受原告委任為訴訟代理人向交通部公路總局第一區養護工程處提起國家賠償訴訟;起訴請求新臺幣70萬元,獲判賠555,120元。據統計顯示,國家賠償勝訴率僅1成,本人獲得賠償金7成9之部分勝訴判決,實難能可貴。