國家賠償責任就國家（行政機關或公務員）與私人有共同行為而侵權情形，因共同侵權行為採取「行為關連共同說」認定之標準，以及國賠法第3條物的責任採取無過失主義之賠償原則，在實務上更擴展了行政機關和民間私人成立共同侵權連帶賠償責任之可能性，許多類此案件已顯然發生，而衍生許多實務問題已隱然存在，但因行政體系諸多因應或權宜措施得宜，早在進入司法程序形成判決先例前已經化解，意味著尚有許多與本文相關之實務問題，尚乏近代國內學者之關注與研究而待發見，上述情形雖係存在的事實，但似仍藉著行政體系之內部控制機制，繼續容忍與摸索因應作法，誠非法制常軌。或應針對現行國家賠償法及其施行細則有關規定，作符合國家賠償目的性之檢討和改良。本文以處理國賠案件之經驗，以實際所遇案例為問題研究之發軔，自學術及實務，首就第三人（人民）與行政機關（國家）有共同行為而侵害請求權人權利情形時，是否適用民法共同侵權行為規定而連帶負賠償責任研析之，其後再就實務運作面向，作法學實證探討，希望藉諸此篇研究，確能呈現現行規定在實務運作上適用之罅隙，且能喚引其他先進學者之研討，並為國家賠償制度之修正方案，提供參考之鄙見。

The plural tort-actors who make victims get hurt or damage shall bear
a joint and involving liability without doubt, according to the Civil Law of R.O.C. While if one of the tort-actors were government party(liability owing to public functionary's negligent acts, wrongful design or installation, and improper administration), should they still be responsible for joint-tort, which can not be stipulated neither in Civil Law nor in State Compensation Law at present? As we take different definitions from the laws mentioned above, is there any distinction or influence?After reading this article's analysis and deliberation through empirical approach, you could understand there are certain loopholes existing in our State Compensation Law and might agree the conclusion and commendation in the last paragraph.