【摘要】：鐵路運(yùn)輸具有明顯不同于其他運(yùn)輸方式的特點(diǎn),其所造成的旅客傷害的情形也是多種多樣,具有自身獨(dú)有的特點(diǎn)。比如鐵路運(yùn)輸?shù)穆每腿藬?shù)眾多,在封閉的車廂里形成一個(gè)小社會(huì),旅客有時(shí)會(huì)遭受第三方侵害的情況,而這個(gè)“第三方”的身份卻真是多種多樣,有的是車廂里的其他旅客,有的是犯罪嫌疑人,有時(shí)列車還會(huì)遭受外來不明物體的襲擊從而造成旅客的傷害。這些第三人致旅客傷害案件作為鐵路運(yùn)輸法院專門管轄的案件,歷來是審理的難點(diǎn),判決結(jié)果不統(tǒng)一的現(xiàn)象是非常普遍的。就是最高法院的相關(guān)司法解釋也存在一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)前后變化的情況,有的規(guī)定表面看起來也是相互矛盾。而且,相關(guān)侵權(quán)法律的規(guī)定與我國(guó)合同法的相關(guān)規(guī)定在適用于同一案件中得出的結(jié)論有時(shí)竟會(huì)截然相反。那么在類似的案件中,鐵路承運(yùn)人應(yīng)該承擔(dān)何種責(zé)任?是安全保障義務(wù)中的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任還是違反附隨義務(wù)的違約責(zé)任?其法理基礎(chǔ)究竟何在?合同法第121條能否適用于本案?對(duì)于這些問題,律師、當(dāng)事人、各個(gè)法院的法官都存在著不同的理解和認(rèn)識(shí),甚至發(fā)生了激烈的爭(zhēng)論。這直接導(dǎo)致了不同法院、法官審理案情基本相同的案件,裁判結(jié)果卻相差甚大。裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不統(tǒng)一損害了司法公信力,影響了社會(huì)的和諧穩(wěn)定。這亟需我們從理論上澄清模糊認(rèn)識(shí),并秉持誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則,作出符合法理和人情的解答,以統(tǒng)一司法裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn),維護(hù)司法的公正和權(quán)威。本文主要采用兩種研究方法：一是實(shí)證分析法。學(xué)術(shù)界研究民法理論,成果顯著,但無論多么深?yuàn)W的理論,其基礎(chǔ)必定是對(duì)實(shí)踐中大量案件的實(shí)證性分析。二是法解釋學(xué)的方法。法律解釋的方法有很多,有文義解釋、限縮解釋、目的解釋等等。筆者將嘗試運(yùn)用這些方法對(duì)相關(guān)法律條文進(jìn)行解釋以得出符合法律精神和常識(shí)人情的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:Railway transportation is different from other modes of transportation, and the situation of passenger injury caused by railway transport is varied and has its own unique characteristics. For example, the number of passengers transported by rail is large, and a small society is formed in a closed compartment, in which passengers sometimes suffer from violations by third parties. However, the identity of this "third party" is really varied, and some of them are other passengers in the carriages. Some are suspects, and sometimes trains are attacked by unknown objects from outside the world, causing damage to passengers. As the special jurisdiction of the railway transport court, these cases of third party causing passenger injury have always been difficult to hear, and the result of judgment is not uniform. Even in the Supreme Court's judicial interpretation, there is a change of opinion, some of which appear to contradict each other. Moreover, the stipulations of the relevant tort law and the relevant provisions of the contract law of our country are applied to the same case and the conclusion can sometimes be completely contrary to that of the contract law of our country. So what is the responsibility of the railway carrier in similar cases? Is it the supplementary responsibility in the security obligation or the breach responsibility in breach of the accompanying obligation? What is the legal basis? Can Article 121 of contract Law apply to this case? For these problems, lawyers, litigants, judges of each court have different understanding and understanding, and even have a fierce debate. This directly led to different courts, judges hearing basically the same case, but the outcome of the decision is very different. The inconsistency of adjudicative standard impairs the judicial credibility and affects the harmony and stability of the society. It is urgent for us to clarify the vague understanding in theory and uphold the principle of good faith and to give the answers in accordance with the legal principle and human feelings in order to unify the standard of judicial judgment and safeguard the justice and authority of the administration of justice. This paper mainly adopts two research methods: one is empirical analysis. The academic circle studies the civil law theory, the achievement is remarkable, but no matter how esoteric theory, its foundation must be to the practice of a large number of cases of the empirical analysis. The second is the method of law hermeneutics. There are many methods of legal interpretation, such as textual interpretation, restrictive interpretation, purpose interpretation and so on. The author will try to use these methods to interpret the relevant legal provisions in order to draw a conclusion in line with the spirit of law and common sense.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 張影;第三人原因違約及其責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];北方論叢;2002年06期

2 李穎;;論債務(wù)履行輔助人的界定[J];研究生法學(xué);2002年01期

3 葉i吰，

本文編號(hào)：2443924