In toxic torts, if the defendants’ negligence is confirmed, the court’s ruling is a punishment translated into monetary amounts, which the plaintiffs are compelled to accept. However, past exposure to toxic substances might continue to cause damage after the judgment, not only among the plaintiffs, but also among their descendants, making an exact measurement of the total damage inflicted almost impossible. A ruling or out-of-court settlement is therefore necessarily a compromise between the obligation to end the dispute and deliver some kind of justice for the victims and the radical uncertainty inherent to toxic torts. In the case of the electronics industry, due to the numerous chemicals to which workers are exposed, the uncertainty of health hazards is particularly high. This article proposes a framework for the valuation of exposure to toxicants, to address both the necessity and the limits of monetary compensation. It is based on a ten-year participating observation of the collective lawsuit launched by more than a thousand former employees of RCA plants in Taiwan, as well as thirty-five in-depth interviews of the plaintiffs following the High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
摘要: 在職業病與公害的侵權訴訟中, 如果法官判定被告有過失, 會命令被告給付原告一定數額的賠償金, 而原告必須接受。然而, 在判決確定後, 原告過去所暴露的有毒物質, 依然可能會繼續對其造成損害。損害所及不僅對原告本人, 可能還包括其後代。從而, 究竟損害的總量有多少, 幾乎無法精確衡量。此外, 經歷親人過世與胎兒流產, 罹患癌症等重大疾病, 乃至面對化學暴露在人體內所留下的不定時炸彈所帶來的心理壓力, 這種經歷都難以換算為金額。因此, 一份判決或和解, 無可避免地, 會是某種妥協: 一邊是為受害者提供某種正義來結束糾紛的責任, 另一邊是毒物侵權糾紛案內在的高度不確定性。而在電子工業的案件中, 由於工人接觸的化學物質眾多, 健康危害的不確定性又更高。本文試圖提供一個衡量毒物暴露的金錢價值的分析框架, 以探討金錢賠償的必要性及其侷限性。本文的經驗材料來自十年來作者對台灣RCA工廠一千多名前員工所發起之團體訴訟的參與觀察, 以及在高等法院和最高法院作出判決後, 對原告進行的三十五個深入採訪。
概要: 公害、 労災職業病に関する団体訴訟において、 被告の過失が確認された場合、 判決によって償いは金銭に換算され、 原告はこれを受け入れざるを得ない。しかし、 過去における有毒物質への曝露は、 原告だけでなくその子孫にも影響を及ぼす可能性があり、 それは判決後も続く。従って、 被害の全容を正確に把握することはほぼ不可能である。さらに、 死別した親、 流産した子、 癌などの重大な健康上の問題、 または化学物質曝露という時限爆弾は深刻な苦悩を引き起こし、 そのような損害は金銭に換算すること自体が不可能である。公害、 労災職業病に関する訴訟は、 根本的に不確実性を伴っているが、 紛争を終わらせ、 被害者に何らかの公正な裁きが下される為には、 判決または和解は必然的に妥協案にならざるを得ない。電子産業の場合、 労働者が曝露する化学物質が非常に多いため、 健康被害の不確実性は特に高くなる。本論文は、 金銭的補償の必要性と限界の両方に取り組むために、 理論的なフレームワークを提案する。この論文は、 米国企業RCA台湾工場の元従業員千人以上が起こした団体訴訟の10年にわたる参与観察、 さらに高裁および最高裁判決後に行った原告35名のインタビューに基づいている。
Keywords:
關鍵詞:
Keywords:
On 17 October 2019, RCA (formerly the Radio Corporation of America) was proud to celebrate its hundred-year anniversary and “100 Years of Magic”:
“Today, the RCA brand symbolizes American ingenuity worldwide. Its iconic name can be found on flat-panel and 4K televisions, tablets, smartphones, home appliances, and many other extraordinary products. From our biggest public moments to the smaller, more personal ones, RCA has been part of our lives and will continue to be today, tomorrow, and for years to come. RCA is in tune with inspiration and innovation for your future needs.”Footnote1
About one month later, on a cold and rainy day, former workers of RCA in Taiwan attended the closure of court hearings at the Taiwan High Court in Taipei. During the lunch break, they held a press conference with their lawyers to explain the current state of the ongoing litigation. For a group of 262 plaintiffs who had already obtained a positive ruling from the Supreme Court in August 2018, RCA and its parent companies General Electric (USA) and Technicolor (France), were about to deliver a total amount of 740 million Taiwan dollars (hereafter TW$), or around US$24.5 millionFootnote2 in compensation for cancer and other severe illnesses, making an average of US$93,000 for each plaintiff. Below one of the articles published online the same day, the most popular comment was:
In the United States, there would be at least two more zeros. The Taiwanese are really worthless.Footnote3
