本文選題：被征收房屋　切入點：侵權(quán)責任　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：安全保障義務(wù)是指，行為人在從事某些活動時，如果預(yù)見自己的行為會導(dǎo)致他人遭受損害，他們應(yīng)當采取合理的措施，保障他人的人身或者財產(chǎn)利益免受自己行為的侵害。安全保障義務(wù)既包含了對物的安全保障義務(wù)也包含了對人的安全保障義務(wù)，在我國20世紀90年代末前，安全保障義務(wù)理論僅僅指物的安全保障義務(wù)，不包括對人的安全保障義務(wù)，由于第三人侵權(quán)案件的大量出現(xiàn)，為保護受害人的利益，最高人民法院才在2003年12月28日頒布的《關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》中明確了經(jīng)營者對進入者人身安全承擔安全保障的義務(wù)1，此后，該條文亦被《中華人民共和國侵權(quán)責任法》第37條2所吸收。但該條文所規(guī)定的承擔安保責任的主體是公共場所的管理人或者群眾性活動的組織者，由于公共場所和群眾性活動具有開放性，因此法規(guī)對進入者的身份并未進行區(qū)分，從而也未區(qū)分對于不同進入者的不同的注意義務(wù)。但是，如果搶劫者因商場地面濕滑跌倒導(dǎo)致傷殘和搶劫失敗，商場是否應(yīng)當區(qū)分對進入商場購物者和進入商場搶劫者的注意義務(wù)，是否應(yīng)當對搶劫者承擔安保責任？若要商場對搶劫者承擔因跌傷造成的損失，顯然是不符合常理和一般善良風俗的。此外，由于我國法律對涉及私人空間的不動產(chǎn)侵權(quán)缺少法律規(guī)定，其中對于區(qū)分進入者身份的規(guī)定僅有受害人在不動產(chǎn)權(quán)人的非經(jīng)營場所的不動產(chǎn)之內(nèi)或之上受到侵害，當受害人要求不產(chǎn)權(quán)人對其承擔侵權(quán)賠償責任時，我國法院出于對受害人權(quán)益的保護，通常會采取過失相抵原則對案件進行裁判，這樣雖然可以最大限度的保障受害人的利益，但是對于不動產(chǎn)權(quán)人而言卻加重了其義務(wù)，不利于對私權(quán)的保護。因此，區(qū)分進入者的身份并對不同進入者承擔不同的注意義務(wù)應(yīng)是承擔安保責任的應(yīng)有之內(nèi)容。本文選取非法進入被征收房屋造成自身損害的案例，試圖對不動產(chǎn)權(quán)人應(yīng)當承擔的注意義務(wù)進行闡述。 石某、廖某等人經(jīng)協(xié)商進入廖某已被征收的房屋中拆除房屋牟利，石某不慎摔傷致死，某征地辦公室及廖某等人是否應(yīng)當對石某的損害承擔賠償？法院判決某征地辦公室及廖某等人根據(jù)賠償能力的不同分別對石某的損害承擔賠償責任，筆者認為：本案受害者石某不僅未經(jīng)被征收房屋權(quán)利人——某征地辦公室的同意，，反而其進入被征收房屋的目的是竊取被征收房屋的鋼筋，進入者懷著侵犯不動產(chǎn)權(quán)人權(quán)益的目的進入不動產(chǎn)，又因自身原因造成損害，卻判令被侵權(quán)人——某征地辦公室承擔侵權(quán)賠償責任，這樣的判例不僅于法無據(jù)，而且有悖情理。本文分別從安保責任、物之損害責任的法律適用、某征地辦公室的主體問題、某征地辦公應(yīng)當承擔的一般安保責任及安保責任的免除等方面進行論述，認為：某征地辦公室不應(yīng)當對石某的損害承擔賠償責任。 此外，由于本案中還涉及到其他與石某一起進入被征收房屋的人是否應(yīng)當對石某的損害承擔賠償責任問題，本文從一起進入者的主體問題、適用法律問題等方面進行分析，認為一起進入者也不應(yīng)當對石某的損害承擔賠償責任。
[Abstract]:Security obligations refers to the behavior of people engaged in certain activities, if anticipate your behavior will cause others to suffer damage, they shall take reasonable measures to protect other personal or property interests from infringement. Their security obligations include both of the security obligation also contains the people security obligations in China before the end of 1990s, the security obligation theory only refers to the obligation of security, not including the security obligation, because of the emergence of a large number of third infringement cases, for the protection of the interests of the victims, explanations of the Supreme People's Court issued in December 28, 2003 "on issues concerning the application of law the trial of personal injury compensation case clearly the personal safety of operators to assume security obligations 1, thereafter, the provisions are" People's Republic of China The tort liability law > thirty-seventh 2 absorbed. But the main assume security responsibility stipulated in the provisions of the managers of public places or organizers of mass activities due to public places and activities of the masses is open, so the regulations did not identity to distinguish, which did not distinguish for different entrants the different duty of care. However, if the robbery because the mall ground slippery falls may lead to disability and rob failure, whether shopping malls should distinguish the duty of care to enter the shopping malls and enter the mall robbery, should bear the responsibility for the security of looters? If you want to take responsibility for the loss caused by the market falls on the robber, apparently do not meet the common sense and general good customs. In addition, due to the law of our country to the private space of the immovable property infringement is lack of legal provisions, which entered the body to distinguish a gauge Set only the victim in real property of non operating real estate sites within or above are violated, when the victim does not require property owners to assume the tort liability in the courts of our country, in order to protect the rights of victims, usually take the principle of contributory negligence to the case for the referee, although this may be the interests of the victim maximum security, but for real property has exacerbated its obligations, is not conducive to the protection of private rights. Therefore, the identity and the distinction into different entry bear different duty of care should undertake security responsibility should be content. This paper selects illegal expropriation of houses caused by entering their own damage case, the duty of care to immovable property rights shall be liable for this paper.
Danmou, Liao et al after consultation into liaomou has been levied on housing demolition of houses for profit, danmou accidentally falls to death, is a land office and Liao et al of danmou shall be liable for compensation for damages? The court of a land office and Liao et al according to different compensation ability on danmou damage bear the responsibility for compensation, I think: the victims danmou not only without the expropriation of housing rights, agreed to a land office, but the houses to be expropriated to steal steel houses to be expropriated, entrants with violations of real property rights to enter the real estate, and damage for their own reasons, but ordered the tort liability for Tort -- a land office bearers, this case not only have no basis in law, but also contrary to reason. This paper from the security responsibility, the liability for damage The application of law, the subject of a land expropriation office, the general security responsibilities and the exemption of security responsibilities of a land acquisition office shall be discussed. It is considered that a land requisition office should not be liable for damages of Shimou.
In addition, because this case also involves other danmou together into the houses to be expropriated person shall be liable for compensation of danmou damage, this paper from the main body together into the problem, the applicable legal issues such as analysis, think together entrants should not be liable to danmou damage.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923;D920.5

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 施長平;;我國不動產(chǎn)安全保障義務(wù)制度建構(gòu)——從普通法的區(qū)分原則談起[J];昆明學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年01期

2 張平華;;侵權(quán)連帶責任的現(xiàn)實類型[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年02期

3 楊垠紅;;論不動產(chǎn)權(quán)利人之作為義務(wù)——美國《侵權(quán)法第三次重述》新動向之啟示[J];法學(xué)論壇;2013年03期

4 費安玲;對不動產(chǎn)征收的私法思考[J];政法論壇;2003年01期

5 申冬亮;;論征收決定生效后地價上漲部分的補償問題[J];中南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)研究生學(xué)報;2011年01期

6 張民安;;“侵權(quán)行為的構(gòu)成要件”抑或“侵權(quán)責任的構(gòu)成要件”之辨——行為人對他人承擔侵權(quán)責任條件的稱謂[J];政治與法律;2012年12期

本文編號：1585343