在侵權行為法領域中，僱用人對受僱人侵權行為之負責機制，始終為核心且具高度爭議性之議題。美國普通法系經歷長期演進，針對此種不取決於自身過失而為他人行為負責之嚴格替代責任（Vicarious Liability），於「僱傭關係」之判斷上，發展出以工作具體細節是否具備「控制權」為核心之檢視依據；於「職務範圍」之界定上，則發展出「動機測試」及基於企業風險分配之「可預見性標準」，提供多元且具彈性之判斷方式。
　　相對而言，我國通說認為民法第188條第1項之僱用人「代負責任」，雖在法理結構上屬推定過失，但因實務對免責舉證要求嚴苛，其實質運作已趨近於無過失責任。然而，在要件判斷上，以加盟店領域為例，我國實務於「僱傭關係」多以事實上僱傭關係為基準，高度仰賴招牌、制服等外觀信賴作為判斷依據；於「執行職務」之認定，亦長期偏重單一之「客觀說」，若行為時之外觀具有執行職務之形式即屬之。實務鮮有其他被廣為接受之檢驗手段，此種廣泛依賴外觀之檢驗方式，在面對受僱人極端之故意犯罪行為時，往往導致僱用人承擔過苛之風險與責任之過度擴張。
　　是以，本文目的在於全面性地梳理並描繪美國僱用人替代責任之體系架構，除探討其正當性基礎外，亦介紹非僱傭關係與職務範圍外之多種替代責任例外，並對僱用人基於自身過失之直接責任加以補充。進一步地比較臺灣與美國兩者間之制度差異，涵蓋責任性質（替代責任或自己責任）、法律要件審查，乃至內部求償權與連帶債務抗辯效力等法律效果之探討。
　　最後，針對實務上最具爭議之兩大部分，本文建議我國可參酌美國法豐富之實務經驗：於「僱傭關係」之認定，應探究僱用人對受僱人之工作細節是否具備控制權；針對如加盟連鎖等複雜型態，可引入「工具測試理論」；針對出借受僱人爭議，則可參酌「現場控制原則」以精準歸責。於「執行職務」之判斷，為衡平被害人保護與適度限制僱用人責任，建議揚棄客觀說，改採「先以客觀外觀檢視，再以可預見性標準為補充」之二階段判斷架構。本文希望藉此能為我國民法第188條之解釋與未來司法實務運作提供具體可行之新思維。

In the field of tort law, the mechanism by which employers are held liable for the tortious conduct of employees has long remained a central and highly controversial issue. Through the gradual evolution of the American common law system, a sophisticated doctrine of strict vicarious liability—under which liability is imposed irrespective of the employer’s own fault—has been developed. In determining the existence of an employer–employee relationship, American law has adopted an analytical framework centered upon whether the employer possesses substantial control over the details of the work. With respect to the determination of the scope of employment, American courts have further developed approaches such as the motive test and the foreseeable risk grounded in enterprise risk allocation, thereby providing diversified and flexible methods of analysis.
By contrast, the prevailing view in Taiwan characterizes employer liability under Article 188, Paragraph 1 of the Taiwanese Civil Code as a form of vicarious liability. Although the doctrine is theoretically structured as presumed-fault liability, the stringent evidentiary burden imposed upon employers seeking exoneration has caused its practical operation to approximate a form of strict liability. Nevertheless, in the determination of legal requirements, Taiwanese judicial practice—particularly in the franchising context—places primary emphasis on the broad concept of a de facto employer–employee relationship and relies heavily upon outward appearances, such as shared signs and uniforms, as the basis for establishing liability. Likewise, in determining whether conduct falls within the scope of employment, Taiwanese courts have long adhered predominantly to the objective theory, under which conduct is deemed within the scope of employment so long as its outward appearance objectively resembles the execution of duties. Few alternative analytical approaches have achieved widespread acceptance in practice. This extensive reliance on appearance-based standards often results in the excessive expansion of employer liability and imposes unduly burdensome risks upon employers, particularly in cases involving extreme intentional criminal conduct committed by employees.
Accordingly, this study aims to provide a comprehensive examination and systematic reconstruction of the framework of employer vicarious liability under American law. In addition to analyzing its theoretical justifications, this study further discusses various exceptions to vicarious liability arising outside traditional employer-employee relationship and outside the scope of employment, while also supplementing the analysis with discussion of the employer’s direct liability based upon its own negligence. On this basis, the study conducts a comparative analysis between Taiwan and the United States, encompassing issues such as the nature of liability (vicarious liability versus direct liability), the examination of legal requirements, and the legal consequences relating to indemnification rights and derivative defenses in joint liability contexts.
Finally, with respect to the two issues that remain most controversial in judicial practice, this study proposes that Taiwanese law may beneficially draw upon the extensive experience of American law. In determining the existence of an employer–employee relationship, courts should examine whether the employer possesses control over the details of the employee’s work. In complex arrangements such as franchise systems, the instrumentality test may be introduced as an analytical framework, while disputes involving borrowed servants may be addressed through reference to the spot control principle in order to allocate liability more precisely. With respect to determining the scope of employment, and in order to balance victim protection against the need to appropriately limit employer liability, this study suggests abandoning the exclusive reliance on the objective theory in favor of a two-step analytical framework: first examining the objective outward appearance of the conduct, and subsequently supplementing the analysis through application of the foreseeable risk. Through these proposals, this study seeks to provide concrete and practicable new perspectives for the interpretation of Article 188 of the Taiwanese Civil Code and for the future development of Taiwanese judicial practice.

一、 中文
(一) 專書
王伯琦（1961），民法債篇總論，四版，台北：三民書局（總經銷）。
王澤鑑（2009），民法學說與判例研究（一），台北：作者自版。
王澤鑑（2014），民法總則，增訂新版，台北：作者自版。
王澤鑑（2025），侵權行為法，台北：作者自版。
史尚寬（1990），債法總論，台北：作者自版。
何孝元（1991），民法債編總論，三版，台北：三民書局。
林誠二（2012），債法總論新解：體系化解說（上），台北：瑞興圖書股份有限公司。
林慶郎（2011），論受僱人執行職務—從盜賣股票事件檢視執行職務之判斷標準，台北：元照出版公司。
邱聰智（姚志明修訂）（2013），新訂民法債編通則（上），新訂二版，台北：承法數位文化。
姚志明（2011），侵權行為法，二版，台北：元照出版公司。
胡長清（1977），中國民法債篇總論，臺三版，台北：臺灣商務印書館。
孫森焱（2012），民法債編總論（上冊），修訂版，台北：作者自版。
陳猷龍（2011），民法債編總論，五版，台北：五南圖書出版。
陳聰富（2008），侵權歸責原則與損害賠償，台北：元照出版公司。
曾隆興（1988），民法債編總論，台北：作者自版。
黃立（2006），民法債編總論，修正三版，台北：作者自版。
楊芳賢（2016），民法債編總論（上），台北：三民書局。
劉春堂（2020），民法債編通則（下），台北：作者自版。
鄭玉波（陳榮隆修訂）（2008），民法債編總論，修訂二版，台北：三民書局。
鄭冠宇（2019），民法債編總論，三版，台北：新學林。
戴修瓚（1993），民法債編總論，四版，台北：三民書局。
(二) 專書論文
李禮仲（2013），美國侵權行為法之法制研究，收於：法學的實踐與創新－陳猷龍教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集（上冊），頁184-224。
(三) 期刊論文
王怡蘋（2012），論僱用人之侵權責任，月旦民商法雜誌，第35期，頁124-142。
王怡蘋（2015），僱用人侵權責任之再建構──最高法院103年度台上字第2587號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，第40期，頁40-47。
王怡蘋（2021），醫療機構侵權責任之再建構──以最高法院106年度台上字第1048號判決為例，月旦裁判時報，第113期，頁26-32。
王澤鑑（1974），僱用人無過失侵權責任之建立，法學叢刊，第19卷第4期，頁10-28。
吳從周（2008），上司罵下屬，公司連帶賠！？受僱人「執行職務」概念之再探討，月旦法學教室，第73期，頁28-36。
林誠二（2006），連帶債務人時效完成之限制絕對效力，台灣本土法學雜誌，第89期，頁177-182。
林誠二（2010），連帶債務人中一人所訂和解契約之效力，月旦法學教室，第97期，頁18-19。
邱玟惠（2018），連帶債務債權人與債務人間和解效力之實務爭議──最高法院103年度台上字第1646號、106年度台上字第815號民事判決之評析，月旦裁判時報，第69期，頁23-34。
侯英泠（2021），醫療機構之組織義務再建構，月旦民商法雜誌，第74期，頁6-27。
姚志明（2012），僱用人求償權範圍之解析－評最高法院100年度台上字第2149號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，第16期，頁18-28。
陳忠五（2022），僱用人對受僱人行使求償權的範圍限制－最高法院107年度台上字第1253號判決（托嬰窒息死亡案）簡析（二），台灣法律人，第13期，頁143-156。
陳忠五（2022），僱用人對受僱人求償權的排除－最高法院107年度台上字第1253號判決（托嬰窒息死亡案）簡析（三），台灣法律人，第14期，頁134-149。
陳忠五（2022），證券公司業務經理詐騙客戶金錢的僱用人責任──最高法院110年度台上字第1092號判決簡析，台灣法律人，第8期，頁168-179。
陳猷龍（1986），借僕之歸責問題，政大法學評論，第34期，頁265-276。
陳聰富（1997），受僱人執行職務之行為－評最高法院八十六年台上字第一四九九號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第50期，頁174-177。
陳聰富（2011），法人團體之侵權責任，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第40卷第4期，頁2087-2126。
陳聰富（2023），僱用人責任，月旦法學教室，第250期，頁54-63。
曾品傑（2022），僱用人侵權責任──最高法院110年度台上字第2116號民事判決，裁判解讀：民事法，第2022:4期，頁1-3。
曾品傑（2025），僱用人侵權責任──最高法院113年度台上字第1873號，裁判解讀：民事法，第2025:4期，頁1-3。
曾品傑、張岑伃（2023），侵權行為──最高法院111年度台上字第1093號，裁判解讀：民事法，第2023:4期，頁1-3。
黃淳鈺（2013），不動產仲介業總店之僱用人責任─以加盟店受僱人侵權行為為中心，月旦法學雜誌，第219期，頁143-161。
楊崇森（2013），美國侵權行為法之理論與運用，軍法專刊，第59卷第6期，頁1-51。
楊智守（2018），負連帶賠償責任之一人和解之效力──以債權人無消滅全部債務之意思表示為中心，月旦司律評，創刊號，頁7-14。
戴志傑（2011），美國法上僱用人懲罰性賠償金責任之研究（上），政大法學評論，第124期，頁203-254。
謝哲勝（2015），僱用人與有責任及時效抗辯，月旦法學教室，第148期，頁12-14。
謝哲勝（2017），受僱人殺人並非執行職務的行為－高等法院103年度上訴字第600號民事判決評析，月旦法學雜誌，第267期，頁184-193。
(四) 學位論文
吳沛珊（2013），論僱用人侵權責任，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文。
張捷菡（2010），僱用人侵權責任之研究，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
陳芷萱（2015），第三人與有過失之承擔，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
黃宥慈（2010），論醫院醫療服務之民事責任，國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文。
(五) 其他
陳洸岳、張南薰（2014），「加盟企業責任與消費者權益之研究」專案計畫報告，台北市政府法務局委託，頁1-176。
二、 英文
(一) 專書
Baty, T. (1916). Vicarious liability: A short history of the liability of employers, principals, partners, associations and trade-union members, with a chapter on the laws of Scotland and foreign states. Clarendon Press.
Dobbs, D. B. (2001). The Law of Torts. West Group.
Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. M. (2016). Hornbook on Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Emanuel, S. (2005). Torts (7th ed.). Aspen Publishers.
Henderson, J. A., Jr., Pearson, R. N., & Kysar, D. A. (2012). The Torts Process (8th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Lee, J. D., & Lindahl, B. A. (2025). Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation (2nd ed.). Clark Boardman Callaghan.
Schwartz, V. E., Kelly, K., & Partlett, D. F. (2020). Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's Torts: Cases and Materials (14th ed.). Foundation Press.
Zeidman, P. F., & Lowell, B. (2021). Legal Aspects of Selling and Buying (3rd ed.). Clark Boardman Callaghan.
(二) 電子書
Lee, J. D., & Lindahl, B. A. (2025). Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation (2nd ed.). Clark Boardman Callaghan.
(三) 期刊論文
Baez, H. B. III. (2009). Volunteers, Victims, and Vicarious Liability: Why Tort Law Should Recognize Altruism. University of Louisville Law Review, 48, 221-264.
Baltz, C. J. (2021). When Justice Should Precede Generosity: The Case Against Charitable Immunity in Arkansas. 2021 Arkansas Law Notes, 1-36.
Barbe, J. K. (1983). Recovering Punitive Damages From Employers: The Practical Application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 909. Land & Water Law Review, 18, 671-676.
Brill, R. L. (1968). The Liability of An Employer for The Wilful Torts of His Servants. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 45, 1-34.
Burns, J. J. (2011). Respondent Superior as an Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves from Direct Negligence Claims. Michigan Law Review, 109, 657-682.
Clark, K. P. (1989). Respondent Inferior: The Rule of Vanderpool v. Grange Insurance Association. Washington Law Review, 64, 419-438.
Comment (1967). Borrowed Servants and the Theory of Enterprise Liability. Yale Law Journal, 76, 807-821.
Dalley, P. J. (2002). All in A Day's Work: Employers' Vicarious Liability for Sexual Harassment. West Virginia Law Review, 104, 517-569.
Dalley, P. J. (2016). Destroying the Scope of Employment. Washburn Law Journal, 55, 637-668.
Elmore, A. (2018). Franchise Regulation for the Fissured Economy. George Washington Law Review, 86, 907-965.
Folkenroth, J. C. (1973). The Employer's Indemnity Action. Louisiana Law Review, 34, 79-87.
Fotiadis, K. (2024). #employerstoo: Expanding Vicarious Liability for Sexual Harassment in Title VII and Tort Law. Michigan Law Review, 123, 355-421.
Geistfeld, M. A. (2024). Reformulating Vicarious Liability in Terms of Basic Tort Doctrine: The Example of Employer Liability for Sexual Assaults in the Workplace. New York University Law Review, 99, 578-635.
Glavaničová, D. & Pascucci, M. (2022). Making Sense of Vicarious Responsibility: Moral Philosophy Meets Legal Theory. Erkenntnis, 89, 107-128.
Harris, D. (2024). The U.S. Supreme Court Illuminates the Basis of Vicarious Liability. American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, 32, 57-70.
Holmes, O. W. (1891). Agency. Harvard Law Review, 4, 345-364.
Holmes, O. W. (1891). Agency. Harvard Law Review, 5, 1-23.
Hornbeck, P. (2020). Respondeat Superior Vicarious Liability for Clergy Sexual Abuse: Four Approaches. Buffalo Law Review, 68, 975-1036.
Hoye, B. B. (2024). The Gate Keepers of Trucking Safety: Keeping Motor Carriers Accountable for Their Negligent Employment Actions. Wyoming Law Review, 24, 535-544.
Hynes, J. D. (1994). Chaos and the Law of Borrowed Servant: An Argument for Consistency. Journal of Law and Commerce, 14, 1-37.
Ingram, J. D. (2007). Vicarious Liability for Negligence of a Vehicle’s Driver. Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 43, 71-84.
James, F. Jr. (1954). Vicarious Liability. Tulane Law Review, 28, 161-215.
Jones, T. (2016). Keeping the Entire Pie and the Dog Fed: Why the Modern Instrumentality Test Fails to Reflect the Realities of the Franchisor-Franchisee Relationship. Franchise Law Journal, 36, 341-366.
Keating, G. C. (1997). The Idea of Fairness in the Law of Enterprise Liability. Michigan Law Review, 95, 1266-1380.
Kimery, B. (1997). Tort Liability of Nonprofit Corporations and Their Volunteers, Directors, and Officers: Focus on Oklahoma. Tulsa Law Journal, 33, 683-704.
Kircher, J. J. (2000). Punitive Damages and Business Organizations: A Pathetic Fallacy. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 971-982.
Lambert, W. G. (2015). Focusing on Fulfilling the Goals: Rethinking How Choice-of-Law Regimes Approach Statutes of Limitations. Syracuse Law Review, 65, 491-550.
Laski, H. J. (1916). The Basis of Vicarious Liability. Yale Law Journal, 26, 105-135.
Lopez, M. E. (2001), A Normative Theory of Nontortfeasor Liability and a Taxonomy for Exemplary Damages, 48 Ucla Law Review, 48, 1017-1056.
McNulty, P. J. (2009). The Coronation and Banishment of "Vicarious Liability" As the Unifying Principle of Iowa Implied Indemnity Law. Drake Law Review, 58, 243-294.
Mellow, M. A., Niedbalski, T., & Wehmer, J. S. (2016). Employee or Independent Contractor? How the Effects of Classifications Impact Employer Liability. Defense Counsel Journal, 83, 45-68.
Moedritzer, M. (1986). Equitable Release Procedure in Employer-Employee Tort Situation. Missouri Law Review, 51, 865-880.
Neyers, J. W. (2005). A Theory of Vicarious Liability. Alberta Law Review, 43, 1-41.
Note (1954). Government Recovery of Indemnity from Negligent Employees: A New Federal Policy. Yale Law Journal, 63, 570-578.
Ohman, D. (2022). Apparent authority: Minnesota finally rejects categorical exemption for independent contractors in hospital 20 emergency rooms and signifies potential for nondelegable duty doctrine—Popovich v. Allina Health Sys., 946 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 2020). Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 48, 467-499.
Raupp, M. T. (2011). The Multiplication of Indivisible Injury. Texas Law Review, 90, 259-282.
Ribaudo, J. (2015). Lane Change: The Need to Clarify McHaffie and Accept a Punitive Damages Exception. St. Louis University Law Journal, 59, 967-996.
Roszkowski, M. E. & Roszkowski, C. L. (2005). Making Sense of Respondeat Superior: An Integrated Approach for Both Negligent and Intentional Conduct. Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies, 14, 235-285.
Smith, B. (1949). Cumulative Reasons and Legal Method. Texas Law Review, 27, 454-468.
Smith, Y. B. (1923). Frolic and Detour. Columbia Law Review, 23, 444-463.
Spradlin, J. E. (1992). The Release Provision of the Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act Applies to Vicarious Liability in the Master-Servant Context - Yates v. New South Pizza, Ltd. Campbell Law Review, 15, 55-76.
Williams, G. (1957). Vicarious Liability and the Master's Indemnity. Modern Law Review, 20, 220-235.
Williamson, W. J. (1936). Master and Servant—Automobiles—Liability of Head of Family for Negligent Driving of a Member of His Family. Texas Law Review, 14, 234-243.
Young, C. W. (1990). Respondeat Superior: A Clarification and Broadening of The Current Scope of Employment Test. Santa Clara Law Review, 30, 599-636.