在共享經濟及物聯網潮流下，「共享單車」如百花齊放遍地開花，在台灣大都會區處處可見其蹤跡，除了滿足市民移動最後一哩路的交通需求，更導入都會區旅行、運動之功能，輕鬆漫遊城市，讓許多人趨之若鶩，紛紛加入成為鐵馬騎士。共享單車的經營型態，可依「政府參與與否」區分為兩大類：政府參與者，多為有樁柱式即定點租借站之共享單車，如台北、新北、桃園、新竹、台中及彰化地區，微笑單車(YouBike) 設置定點租借站已逾 1,000 個，另有台中 iBike、台南 TBike、高雄 cBike、屏東 PBike 等，又稱公共自行車；另一種是政府未參與者，拜智慧科技所賜，企業透過手機商業平台及物聯網而創造出隨租隨還的租借模式，以無租借站之模式提供使用，即俗稱無樁柱式共享單車，在這種無樁柱式、隨處租借模式的推波助瀾下，共享單車的方便性更為提升，消費者使用黏著度也更為提高。

然而，台灣都會區的街廓普遍狹小，大多數均未劃分專屬自行車道，遂有自行車既與行人爭道、又和機汽車爭道的穿梭亂象，造成鐵馬騎士與其他用路人間的對立。因此，在欣喜於共享單車使用度增加的同時，政府及自行車業者更應積極推動正確的騎士禮儀，並加強交通規則宣導與完善政策規劃，才能降低事故發生，使共享單車得以在公共道路上與行人、汽機車駕駛等和平共存。否則，各地方政府對共享單車停放的規範不一，部分地方政府如北市、新北市禁止共享單車停放在機車格，而其他縣市雖允許自行車可停放在機車格內，但並未通盤考量數量規劃，再加上國人自行車禮儀概念尚未普遍成形，導致馬路上常常看到自行車之未適當停放，猶如任意丟棄路旁， 尤以無樁柱共享單車更常見有這種情形。試想在夜色昏暗或者風雨交加視線不明情況下，行人走路時不慎踢到自行車而跌倒發生意外時，行人將要向誰索賠，誰又須負起相關賠償責任？共享單車業者對於所出租之單車有無維護及管理之義務，而必須負起賠償責任等。倘若認為共享單車業者必須負起上開責任，是否又會因為責任範圍不確定，在無法控制預料風險的情況下，造成企業卻步，反而抑制綠色企業發展，而阻礙
共享單車生存？在各方利益間如何取得平衡？值得我輩深思。

本文研究範圍並非著眼於活動在馬路上的自行車交通事故，而是在探討：當停放 在公共道路上的共享單車造成行人損傷時，共享單車業者是否需承擔賠償責任？易言 之，共享單車不當停放導致路人損傷之危險，此時共享單車業者是否須負起賠償責任？ 抑或是由承租人即騎士來承擔？而業者及騎士的總體財產是否足以負起賠償責任，使 被害人損害得以填補？此均攸關共享單車業者、騎士及行人三方利益平衡及保護。若 將車輛的違規停放歸為企業經營風險，則業者基於此認知，將會自發性整頓不當停放 問題，這時企業內部自制的效率，應勝於外部政府違規取締之規制，也許更有助於整 頓單車不當停放之問題。但是，業者是否確有技術來控管騎士的任意停放問題？如果 騎士行為有其不確定及無法掌握，則課予業者太高的注意義務和賠償責任，是否將使 企業風險過激，甚而無法負擔？又是否可透何種機制將企業經營風險降低或控制至合 理程度，才不會阻礙企業經營模式的創新、扼殺共享單車生存？也是本文研究重點。

Under the tendency of sharing economy and the Internet of Things, bike-sharing is like a hundred flowers in bloom all over the place. The trace of shared bikes is everywhere at Taiwan metropolitan areas. Besides satisfying the citizens with short-distanced movement, bike-sharing also provides the function of traveling and exercising at the metropolitan area, letting people roam around the city in a free and easy way, which makes more people go after becoming the knight on a bicycle like a flock of ducks. The business model of bike sharing is distinguished into whether the government is be part of it or not. One type of bike- sharing is with governmental participation, also known as public bicycle, which usually has stationed/fixed rental places, whom we can see in Taipei, New Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Taichung and Changhua. In addition to YouBike(Taipei), which has more than one thousand
fixed rental place, there are other different kinds of bike-sharing such as iBike(Taichung), TBike (Tainan), cBike(Kaohsiung, PBike (Pingtung), and so on； The other type of bike- sharing is without governmental participation. Owing to smart technologies, enterprisescreate the anywhere-and-anytime mode of renting and returning throw the cell phones commercial platform and the Internet of Things. The bike-sharing which provides the mode of renting at anywhere and anytime without fixed rental places, is called dockless bike- sharing. Contributed to the dockless type, the convenience and consumers’ use-stickiness of bike-sharing promotes, which makes it to be seen everywhere at metropolitan areas.

However, the roads in Taiwan are usually narrow, and most of them aren’t be marked a bike lane off. As a result, bicycles compete against not only pedestrians but also motorcycles and cars, making bicyclists conflict with other users. Therefore, besides delighting in the increasing usage rate of bike-sharing, the government and bicycle industry should teach bicyclists the correct etiquette , put great efforts into publicizing the trafficregulations, and perfect the policy formulation, in order to reduce the car-accident rate, which let it possible for shared bicycles to coexist in peace with pedestrians and car drivers. Otherwise, the regulations of parking shared bicycles in different local governments aren’t all the same. Part of local governments such as Taipei City and New Taipei City prohibit people from parking shared bicycles on motorcycle parking spaces. In areas where people are allowed to do so, there is no appropriate plan of amount. Moreover, our compatriots haven’t built up the basic bicycle etiquette yet in general. As a result, we can still frequently see that the bicycles are parked not on motorcycle parking spaces appropriately and also in an inappropriately way, as be abandoned on roads at will. The situation above particularly happens to dockless bike-sharing. Let us think about the situation that a pedestrian falls down because he/she incautiously kicks a bicycle while walking in a dark orrainy day with unclear sight. When the accident happens, whom the pedestrian is going to lodge a claim with？ Who should take the relevant liabilities for compensation？ Are bike- sharing industries under the obligation to maintain and manage their own shared bikes and take the liability for compensation or not？ However, the bike-sharing industry must take the responsibility. But, will the unsure limitation of liability, causing unpredictable risks,makes the enterprises take too much risks, which holds Green Industry back and obstruct the development of bike-sharing？ Therefore, it is worth for us to think deeply about how to strike a balance.

Rather than traffic accidents of bicycles ridden on the roads, this thesis’ study area focused on the situation that shared bikes parked on public roads cause damage to pedestrians, in which whether the bike-sharing industry has to take the liability for compensation. In other words, who should take the liability for compensation for the danger of inappropriately-parked shared bikes causing damage to pedestrians, the bike-sharingindustry or the lessee(bicyclist)？ Can their property bear the liability for compensation tosatisfy the victim？ It matters to the trilateral balance and protection between the bike-sharing industry, bicyclist and pedestrian. If the irregularly parked bicycles belong to the bike-sharing industry’s operating risk, bike-sharing industries reorganize it and work on it. Then, the effect on inside enterprise autonomy shoud works than on outside governmentalban. It may be more helpful to solve this problem. But, does the bike-sharing industry have any technique to manage bicyclists’ behavior of parking randomly？ With an eye on the uncertainty and uncontrollable of bicyclists’ behavior, if the bike-sharing industry takes toomuch liability for compensation and duty of care of bicyclists’ randomly-parking behavior, it is afraid that the enterprises under the extreme company risk can’t afford it. In order notto obstruct the innovation of business model and not to strangle the existence of bike-sharing, is there any method to decrease the risk or control it reasonably？ This is also one of points in the thesis.

一、中文部分
王伯琦，契約責任與侵權責任之競合，大陸雜誌第 11 卷第 4 期，西元 1955 年 8 月
出版，台北。

王澤鑑，債法原理 基本理論 債之發生、契約、無因管理 ，西元 2012 年 3 月增訂
3 版，台北。

王澤鑑，變動中的債法，第 15 頁，收錄於債法原理 基本理論 債之發生、契約、無
因管理，西元 2012 年 3 月增訂 3 版，台北。

王澤鑑，契約責任與侵權責任之競合，收錄於民法學說與判例研究第一冊，西元
1996 年 10 月出版，台北。

王澤鑑，侵權行為，西元 2011 年 8 月出版，台北。

王澤鑑，僱用人無過失侵權責任的建立，收錄民法學說與判例研究第一冊，西元
1993 年 10 月出版，台北。

史尚寬，債法總論，西元 1990 年 8 月出版，台北。

宋明哲，現代風險管理，西元2008年10月出版，五南圖書，台北。

吳思華，策略九說：策略思考的本質，西元 2000 年 9 月出版，臉譜，台北。

林大洋，民法第 184 條 2 項之解釋與適用-從實務觀點談「違反保護他人法律」之具
體化，中律會訊第 16 卷第 3 期，西元 2014 年 11 月，台北。

林大洋，違反保護他人法律之責任，收錄於民事實務法律問題研究，2009 年 9 月出
版，世一，台北。

林誠二，論過失與不作為侵權行為之認定，台灣法學雜誌第 178 期，2011 年 6 月 15日，台北。

邱聰智，新訂民法債編總論通則上冊，西元 2014 年 3 月出版，華泰文化，台北。

姜世明，消極事實之舉證責任分配，收錄於舉證責任與證明度，西元 2008 年 10 月
出版，新學林，台北。

凌氤寶、康裕民、陳森松，保險學－理論與實務(9 版)，西元 2017 年 9 月出版，華泰
文化，台北。

孫森焱，民法債編總論(上冊)，西元 2014 年 10 月出版，台北。

張志朋，民法債編 1，西元 2013 年 7 月 9 出版，高點文化，台北。

陳忠五，論契約責任與侵權責任的保護客體-「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再反
省，台大法學論叢第 36 卷第 3 期，西元 2007 年 9 月出版，台北。

陳忠五，第三人侵害債權的侵權責任-問題爭論實益的探討，收錄於司法院謝前副院
長在全七秩祝壽論文集-物權與民事法新思維，西元 2014 年 1 月出版，元照出版社，台北。

陳聰富，侵權行為違法性與損害賠償，西元 2016 年 3 月出版，元照出版社，台北。

陳聰富，侵權歸責原則與損害賠償，西元 2008 年 6 月出版，元照出版社，台北。

陳繼堯，危險管理論，西元2008年10月出版，三民書局，台北。

筒井信行，風險管理，賴青松譯，西元1999年9月出版，日之昇，台北。

鄭玉波，民法債篇總論(陳榮隆修訂)，西元2002年6月出版，三民書局，台北。。

鄧家駒，風險管理，西元 2005年6月出版，華泰文化，台北。

鄭燦堂，風險管理－理論與實務，西元2016年10月出版，五南圖書，台北。

二、英文部分
D.Mchamee, 2000, “Targeting business risk”, The internal Auditor, vol. 57,Iss. 5, pp. 46-51.

E.J. Vaughan, 2000, “Risk Management”, John Wiley & SonsInc.

J.S. Rosenbloom, 1972, “A case study in Risk Managememt”.

K.F. Reding, H. B. Craig, and K. Kristine, Digirolamo, 2000, “Creating a Business Risk Inventory”, Internal Auditor, vol. 57, Iss. 1, pp. 47-52.

Rowe and D. William, 1977, An anatomy of risk, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

三、網路部分
YouBike 微笑單車官方網站，取自：https://ntpc.youbike.com.tw/about/youbike 李開復博士，共享經濟才剛開始大部分服務業都會被顛覆。取自：
https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/35267/BN-ARTICLE-35267
科技橘報，【三個共享單車產業發展關鍵】從共享單車發展歷史，看科技如何重新形
塑城市文化？，取自：https://buzzorange.com/techorange/2017/08/29/bike-
shring-history/
郭美孜、周凡鈺，共享經濟 你今天分享了嗎？取自：
https://infographic.chinatimes.com/20170901000006-262804
《會計研究月刊》2016.5 月號，共享經濟傳統與創新的戰爭。取自：
https://udn.com/news/story/6877/2438534