論美國侵權(quán)法上的“特殊關(guān)系”
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-16 13:48
【摘要】：隨著人們之間接觸的日益頻繁化以及社會風(fēng)險的日漸加大,出現(xiàn)了一些新型的不作為侵權(quán)案件。但我國現(xiàn)有法律沒有對這些情況作出明確的規(guī)定,從而導(dǎo)致了不同的法院甚或同一法院對相類似的案件作出不同判決的情形。要使行為人承擔(dān)不作為責(zé)任,首先要確定的是其存在作為義務(wù)。而我國現(xiàn)有作為義務(wù)來源已經(jīng)無法滿足司法實踐的需求,所以有必要對作為義務(wù)來源進行擴張。美國侵權(quán)法上的特殊關(guān)系理論為我們指明了一條道路,該理論成為作為義務(wù)的來源已經(jīng)有一百多年的歷史,美國學(xué)術(shù)界與理論界對其進行了廣泛而深入的研究。然而我國學(xué)者卻對特殊關(guān)系理論研究甚少,為了適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代侵權(quán)法的發(fā)展趨勢,為了解決現(xiàn)實中不斷出現(xiàn)的新型不作為侵權(quán)案件,我們有必要對特殊關(guān)系理論進行研究。 本文共分為五個部分進行論述。第一部分主要介紹了特殊關(guān)系的概念、類型、特征以及與其它幾種作為義務(wù)來源的區(qū)別。 第二部分與第三部分主要介紹了特殊關(guān)系的歷史演變以及演變的社會背景分析。美國侵權(quán)法上的特殊關(guān)系起源于中世紀(jì)英國法院的間接侵害賠償之訴令狀。到十九世紀(jì)末,隨著注意義務(wù)的形成、作為與不作為的區(qū)分以及受美國社會人本主義哲學(xué)觀、社會結(jié)構(gòu)改變、道德法律化運動以及一些極端案例產(chǎn)生的不良社會效果的影響,特殊關(guān)系理論制度正式形成。美國《侵權(quán)法重述》以成文法的形式確立了特殊關(guān)系制度,并進行了類型化的規(guī)定,為司法實踐提供了具體的指導(dǎo)。 第四部分主要介紹了基于特殊關(guān)系為何能產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù)以及義務(wù)的類型。特殊關(guān)系能夠產(chǎn)生作為義務(wù),其理由有以下四點：1.可預(yù)見性。2.機會損失。3.自我保護能力的降低。4.實施作為義務(wù)的地位。因特殊關(guān)系產(chǎn)生的作為義務(wù)主要有：保護義務(wù)、控制義務(wù)、救助義務(wù)、警告義務(wù)以及檢查義務(wù)等。特殊關(guān)系的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)主要存在四種學(xué)說：控制能力說、合理負(fù)擔(dān)說、信賴說以及公共政策說。 第五部分主要介紹了我國目前作為義務(wù)立法的不足以及特殊關(guān)系對我國作為義務(wù)立法的啟示。根據(jù)《民法通則》、《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》等法律法規(guī)以及相關(guān)的司法解釋,我國的作為義務(wù)來源主要包括法律規(guī)定、先行行為、合同約定、安全保障義務(wù)�，F(xiàn)有作為義務(wù)法律制度存在義務(wù)來源有限、不成體系化以及作為義務(wù)主體有限、保護對象不明等不足。通過對美國侵權(quán)法上的特殊關(guān)系理論的借鑒,我們可以在立足于現(xiàn)有理論的前提下引進特殊關(guān)系理論,不但可以解決司法實踐中的那些新型不作為侵權(quán)案件,而且可以擴張作為義務(wù)來源；在保留安全保障義務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)上,將特殊關(guān)系規(guī)定為其來源；在擴張作為義務(wù)人和明確保護對象的基礎(chǔ)上,將作為義務(wù)進行類型化規(guī)定；在第三人侵權(quán)情況下應(yīng)規(guī)定作為義務(wù)人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:With the increasingly frequent contact between people and the increasing social risks, there are some new cases of omission infringement. However, the existing laws of our country do not make clear provisions on these cases, which leads to different judgments of similar cases by different courts or even by the same court. In order to make the actor bear the responsibility of omission, the first thing to be determined is the obligation of existence. However, as a source of obligation, our country can not meet the needs of judicial practice, so it is necessary to expand as a source of obligation. The theory of special relationship in American tort law shows a way for us. It has been a source of obligation for more than one hundred years and has been studied extensively and deeply by American academic and theoretical circles. However, in order to adapt to the development trend of modern tort law and solve the new type of tort cases, it is necessary for us to study the special relationship theory in order to adapt to the development trend of modern tort law. This article is divided into five parts to discuss. The first part mainly introduces the concept, types, characteristics and differences from other sources of obligation. The second part and the third part mainly introduce the historical evolution of the special relationship and the social background analysis of the evolution. The special relationship in American tort law originates from the writ of indirect damages in medieval English courts. By the end of the nineteenth century, with the formation of the duty of care, the distinction between action and omission, and the influence of the American philosophy of humanism, the change of social structure, the movement of moral legalization, and the adverse social effects of some extreme cases, The system of special relation theory was formally formed. The restatement of Tort Law in the United States establishes the system of special relationship in the form of statutory law, and provides specific guidance for judicial practice. The fourth part mainly introduces why and the type of obligation based on special relationship. There are four reasons why special relationships can arise as obligations: 1. Predictability. 2. Opportunity loss. Reduction in self-protection. 4. The status of enforcement as an obligation. The obligations arising from special relationships include: duty of protection, obligation of control, obligation of rescue, duty of warning and obligation of inspection. There are four theories to judge the special relationship: the theory of control ability, the theory of reasonable burden, the theory of trust and the theory of public policy. The fifth part mainly introduces the deficiency of our country's current legislation of obligation and the enlightenment of the special relationship to our country's legislation of obligation. According to the General principles of Civil Law, Tort liability Law and other laws and regulations, as well as related judicial interpretation, the source of our country's obligations as a law mainly includes the provisions of the law, the first act, the contract agreement, the obligation of safety and security. The existing legal system of obligation has some shortcomings, such as limited source of obligation, non-systematization, limited subject of obligation and unclear object of protection, etc. By drawing lessons from the special relationship theory in American tort law, we can introduce the special relationship theory based on the existing theory, which can not only solve the new type of tort cases in judicial practice. On the basis of reserving the obligation of safety and security, the special relationship can be defined as the source, and on the basis of the expansion as the obligor and the object of protection, it will be classified as the obligation. In the case of infringement by the third party, it shall be stipulated that the obligor shall bear joint and several liability.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913
本文編號：2274554
[Abstract]:With the increasingly frequent contact between people and the increasing social risks, there are some new cases of omission infringement. However, the existing laws of our country do not make clear provisions on these cases, which leads to different judgments of similar cases by different courts or even by the same court. In order to make the actor bear the responsibility of omission, the first thing to be determined is the obligation of existence. However, as a source of obligation, our country can not meet the needs of judicial practice, so it is necessary to expand as a source of obligation. The theory of special relationship in American tort law shows a way for us. It has been a source of obligation for more than one hundred years and has been studied extensively and deeply by American academic and theoretical circles. However, in order to adapt to the development trend of modern tort law and solve the new type of tort cases, it is necessary for us to study the special relationship theory in order to adapt to the development trend of modern tort law. This article is divided into five parts to discuss. The first part mainly introduces the concept, types, characteristics and differences from other sources of obligation. The second part and the third part mainly introduce the historical evolution of the special relationship and the social background analysis of the evolution. The special relationship in American tort law originates from the writ of indirect damages in medieval English courts. By the end of the nineteenth century, with the formation of the duty of care, the distinction between action and omission, and the influence of the American philosophy of humanism, the change of social structure, the movement of moral legalization, and the adverse social effects of some extreme cases, The system of special relation theory was formally formed. The restatement of Tort Law in the United States establishes the system of special relationship in the form of statutory law, and provides specific guidance for judicial practice. The fourth part mainly introduces why and the type of obligation based on special relationship. There are four reasons why special relationships can arise as obligations: 1. Predictability. 2. Opportunity loss. Reduction in self-protection. 4. The status of enforcement as an obligation. The obligations arising from special relationships include: duty of protection, obligation of control, obligation of rescue, duty of warning and obligation of inspection. There are four theories to judge the special relationship: the theory of control ability, the theory of reasonable burden, the theory of trust and the theory of public policy. The fifth part mainly introduces the deficiency of our country's current legislation of obligation and the enlightenment of the special relationship to our country's legislation of obligation. According to the General principles of Civil Law, Tort liability Law and other laws and regulations, as well as related judicial interpretation, the source of our country's obligations as a law mainly includes the provisions of the law, the first act, the contract agreement, the obligation of safety and security. The existing legal system of obligation has some shortcomings, such as limited source of obligation, non-systematization, limited subject of obligation and unclear object of protection, etc. By drawing lessons from the special relationship theory in American tort law, we can introduce the special relationship theory based on the existing theory, which can not only solve the new type of tort cases in judicial practice. On the basis of reserving the obligation of safety and security, the special relationship can be defined as the source, and on the basis of the expansion as the obligor and the object of protection, it will be classified as the obligation. In the case of infringement by the third party, it shall be stipulated that the obligor shall bear joint and several liability.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 陳清;;英美法系侵權(quán)法上救助義務(wù)研究[J];河北法學(xué);2012年07期
，本文編號：2274554
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2274554.html
