【摘要】：AA制自助游的形成是基于各參與者的共同興趣,為實現(xiàn)結(jié)交朋友、愉悅身心之目的而為,欠缺“效果意思”,因而不具有法律行為的屬性,此種情形符合“情誼行為”的本質(zhì)特征,通常情形下,在各參與者之間不成立特定的法律關(guān)系。盡管如此,在參與者違反某種注意義務(wù)侵害他人的合法權(quán)益時,其仍然可能基于過錯承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。隨著客觀過錯理論的發(fā)展,過錯實際轉(zhuǎn)化為對于某種注意義務(wù)的違反,在本案中則具體表現(xiàn)為對于安全保障義務(wù)的違反。鑒于AA制自助游的—般參與者之間作為不具有特定法律關(guān)系的“陌生人”,讓其互相負擔(dān)安全保障義務(wù)有違公平正義,而對于“危險之源開啟者”的組織者,則應(yīng)承擔(dān)安全保障義務(wù),然而,本案被告均不符合組織者的本質(zhì)特征,因此本案并不存在具體的組織者,所有被告均不應(yīng)承擔(dān)安全保障義務(wù),自然也不應(yīng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。在此情形下,能否適用公平責(zé)任將成為本案中原告損失能否得到分擔(dān)的最后一道防線。但是,公平責(zé)任的適用并非完全依賴法官的自由裁量,而是必須具備以下三個要件：即依據(jù)侵權(quán)法的歸責(zé)原則受害人無法得到救濟、受害人損害嚴重且無過錯以及加害人的行為與損害結(jié)果之間具有因果關(guān)系。本案中,在受害人自身存在明顯過錯以及被告行為與損害結(jié)果不存在因果關(guān)系的情況下,二審法院適用公平責(zé)任于法無據(jù),這種裁判思維的背后折射出裁判者對于適用公平責(zé)任的隨意性,破壞了司法的權(quán)威性。
[Abstract]:The formation of the AA self-help tour is based on the common interests of the participants, in order to achieve the purpose of making friends and pleasing the body and mind, it lacks the "effect meaning", so it does not have the attribute of legal action. This kind of situation accords with the essential characteristic of "friendship act", usually, there is no specific legal relationship between the participants. However, when the participant violates some duty of care and infringes the legitimate rights and interests of others, he may be liable for tort on the basis of fault. With the development of the objective fault theory, the fault actually transforms into the violation of some duty of care, and in this case it is manifested as the violation of the duty of safety and security. Given that AA self-help tour participants are "strangers" who do not have a specific legal relationship, it would be unfair and just for them to share security obligations with each other, and for the organizers of the "source of danger opener", However, the defendant in this case does not accord with the essential characteristics of the organizer, so there is no specific organizer in this case, all the defendants should not undertake the obligation of security, and naturally should not bear the tort liability. In this case, the application of fair liability will be the last line of defense for the plaintiff's loss to be shared in this case. However, the application of fair liability is not entirely dependent on the discretion of the judge, but must have the following three elements: the victim cannot get relief according to the imputation principle of tort law. There is a causal relationship between the victim's behavior and the result of the damage. In the present case, in the case of the victim's own obvious fault and where there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the result of the damage, the court of second instance has no basis for applying fair liability to the law. This kind of judgment thinking reflects the arbitrariness of the referee to the application of fair responsibility and undermines the authority of the judicature.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D923;D920.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 屈茂輝;;論民法上的注意義務(wù)[J];北方法學(xué);2007年01期

2 侯國躍;;論“驢友”遇險事件的民事責(zé)任[J];重慶工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年01期

3 徐祖林;;論自助游意外事故中的民事法律責(zé)任[J];廣西民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2010年02期

4 蒙曉陽;余兵;;自助游驢友應(yīng)否互負安全保障義務(wù)?——以廣西南寧“中國驢友第一案”兩審判決為例[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年02期

5 張力;劉中杰;;戶外自助旅游遇險事件法律分析——從“南寧7.9案”到“重慶7.11事件”[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2010年05期

6 王愛軍;;英美侵權(quán)法中的介入因素與取代原因理論評析[J];濟寧學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年05期

7 邱鷺風(fēng);;論情誼行為侵權(quán)責(zé)任——以一起“情誼行為侵權(quán)案”的判決為分析樣本[J];南京大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué).人文科學(xué).社會科學(xué)版);2008年05期

8 賈邦俊;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中安全保障義務(wù)“合理限度”的思考——從比較法角度審視[J];紹興文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué));2010年06期

9 高俊雪;;從AA制看中西文化差異[J];文學(xué)界(理論版);2010年02期

10 顏貽潑;;論以網(wǎng)絡(luò)論壇形式組織自駕游之組織者的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];現(xiàn)代商業(yè);2008年35期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉迪;論社會活動組織者的安全保障義務(wù)[D];天津師范大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2295999