除了 VW 的公害事件外，最近，杜邦集團又惹上官司了。繼纏訟十數年之久的「鐵弗龍 (Teflon) 不沾鍋」案之後，這次的事件還是由 Teflon 衍生出來的案外案～排放有毒物質廢水案，和日月光排放廢水案可說是如出一轍。這篇報導的焦點置重在消費訴訟～高達 3,500 位受害消費者有意提起團體訴訟，但因為因果關係證明的困難，所以先由其中一位提起代表訴訟。她的案子，當然具有指標性的意義，是否能成立？大家摒息以待！

損害金額小、受害消費者過於分散、因果關係不易證明，大概是消費者團體訴訟共同面對的難題。回想日前接二連三在台灣發生的食安事件，塑化劑一案的判決結果，同樣引起一片譁然。消費者利用消保法第 50 條規定，將損害賠償請求權讓與消基會，由消基會提起損害賠償訴訟，其請求賠償之金額從最高 6 億元、最低 350 萬元，經法院判決後，只剩下 84 萬零～ 9 元！真可謂消基會律師團的一大挫敗。依判決理由的記載，法院大坎賠償金額的理由，主要是因為塑化劑對於人體健康固有妨害，但會由人體快速代謝排出，在僅攝取微量的塑化劑的情況下，消費者難以證明其健康權受有損害，更難證明其財產上損害的數額。

在塑化劑的案子裏，我看到了法官仍然固守民事訴訟法那一套證據法則，不禁想起了邱聯恭老師常常掛在嘴邊的「民事事件類型審理必要論」（這樣有沒有非常得到邱老師的真傳？！）。當然，邱老師談的是程序問題，也就是程序法上的審理原則，應該隨著紛爭類型的不同而有所調整；但實體法的若干原理原則，又何嘗不是如此？尤其是在侵權行為案件，不是每一個案子都必須一體適用「相當因果關係」（更何況法律也沒有規定必須採用相當因果關係），陳聰富老師在「因果關係與損害賠償」一書中，介紹了美國侵權行為法不同的因果關係理論，在我國侵權行為爭訟裏，未嘗不可參照而因時、因地、因事調整。法律，貴在融會貫通、貴在靈活運用，如果法官只知道死守判例和「通說」見解，甚至於望文生義作法條解釋，就怪不得社會輿論一面倒地質疑法官的專業素養和敬業態度了。

下一系列貼文，談近十年來最受矚目的公害污染事件～ RCA 工殤案，臺灣臺北地方法院捨棄相當因果關係理論，而採用「疫果因果關係」，以因應公害案件之成因繁雜及多元，因果關係難以證明等特點。到時別忘了準時收看喔！

再回到 VW 一案，如果台灣擁有該車型的消費者，也來集合一下，對 VW 提起團體訴訟，試問：消費者可以主張的請求權基礎為何呢？

VW 雖在排放廢氣的數據上動了手腳，但消費者在沒有辦法證明吸了這麼多過量的廢氣，而導致其健康受損的前提下，只能主張買到不合規格的車輛，亦即該車輛帶有物之瑕疵而請求損害賠償。不過，請求權基礎不能求諸於消保法第 7 條，因為該條所稱「財產」，不包括瑕疵商品本身（亦即不包括「商品自傷」），而只能求諸於民法第 191 條之 1 規定。

看來～要給無良企業一個警惕與懲罰，把希望放在消費者訴訟上，大概是沒啥看頭了。第一，除非是像 VW 一案，車輛價值較高，消費者可能比較有意願提起訴訟，否則，買了黑心食品，說實在的，價格不高，而且早就吃進肚子裏了，就連想證明曾經購買，都有困難，更遑論還得算清楚究竟吃了多少？可以請求賠償多少金額？第二，舉證責任的困難。塑化劑一案，正是因為消費者無法證明權利受到侵害，更無法證明受有損害，最後法院只判定了象徵性的賠償數額，等於否定了消費者的損害賠償請求權。

明台大老師想說的是：對付這種無良企業，行政罰，尤其是足以讓無良企業破產的天價罰鍰，應該是最有效的。在唯利是圖的今天，談什麼企業良心、社會責任，都是多餘。處以高額的行政罰鍰，再在這些罰鍰作為基金，處理善後事宜，應該是唯一可以阻止同樣情況一而再、再而三發生的最佳武器吧。寫著寫著，不由得地覺得可悲 …… （全文完）

【 Chemical-Discharge Case Against DuPont Goes to Trial 】

An Ohio woman seeking compensation for health problems allegedly caused by water contamination from chemical Giant DuPont Co. is headed to trial this week, and its outcome could impact thousands of claims filed by other U.S. residents in a long-standing case.

The federal civil trial in Columbus, Ohio, will focus on 59-year-old Carla Bartlett, a Guysville, Ohio, resident who says she suffered kidney cancer as a result of a toxic chemical discharged by a DuPont plant I West Virginia into the drinking water of surrounding areas.

Ms. Bartlett’s case is the first of about 3,500 personal-injury claims filed against DuPont to head to trial, with jury selection expected to begin Monday.

The original class-action lawsuit was filed in 2001 by thousands of residents living in Parkerburg, W. Va., or near its plant there.

DuPont reached a settlement with the group in 2004 that included an agreement to pay for water filtration systems and a medical monitoring program to determine whether C-8 caused any adverse health effects.

After a more than 7-year study, an independent panel of scientists found a likely link between C-8 exposure and six diseases, including kidney cancer and thyroid cancer, allowing plaintiffs with these diseases to file individual claims against DuPont.

Ms. Bartlett’s case was selected to act as one of the bellwether trials that will determine how DuPont should proceed against the other individual plaintiffs, lawyers said.

Ms. Bartlett’s lawyers allege in court documents that DuPont researchers knew about the potential toxicity of C-8 – a chemical used to make Teflon products – since as early as the 1960s but failed to disclose the information to communities where DuPont plants were located.

Her lawyers claim DuPont misled the public about the health consequences of C-8 and even increased its usage despite knowing its effects.

DuPont also refused to install readily available technologies that could have reduced the amount of C-8 emitted into the air or water, Ms. Bartlett’s lawyers alleged.

DuPont’s lawyers have said in court documents that DuPont couldn’t have foreseen any potential health risks to Ms. Bartlett because of limited medical and scientific knowledge available to the company at the time.