本文選題：雇主替代責(zé)任 + 雇主追償權(quán)　； 參考：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)代分工明細(xì)的社會(huì)及大規(guī)模的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)中,無(wú)論是企業(yè)還是個(gè)人都不可能事必躬親,均需借助他人的力量從事一定的工作或者事業(yè)。因此,在法律允許的范圍內(nèi),雇傭他人從事某項(xiàng)工作已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代社會(huì)的顯著特點(diǎn)。為規(guī)制雇主、雇員和第三人之間的關(guān)系,雇主責(zé)任制度應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。廣義的雇主責(zé)任包含兩個(gè)方面：一是雇主對(duì)雇員在執(zhí)行職務(wù)中所受損害應(yīng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任；二是雇主對(duì)雇員在執(zhí)行職務(wù)過(guò)程中對(duì)第三人造成的損害應(yīng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任。前者在勞動(dòng)法上給予了充分重視,后者則屬于民事責(zé)任的范圍。本文的雇主替代責(zé)任所指的就是雇主應(yīng)承擔(dān)雇員對(duì)第三人致害的賠償責(zé)任。 出于雇主的強(qiáng)勢(shì)經(jīng)濟(jì)地位和保護(hù)受害人利益的考慮,我國(guó)法律規(guī)定了雇主替代責(zé)任制度。新出臺(tái)的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》將雇主替代責(zé)任從《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理人身?yè)p害賠償案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》所規(guī)定的分別立法模式(將法人、其他組織工作人員行為致害責(zé)任與狹義雇主責(zé)任區(qū)分)改變?yōu)榻y(tǒng)一的“替代責(zé)任”模式,但雇主對(duì)受害人承擔(dān)了損害賠償責(zé)任之后是否對(duì)雇員享有追償權(quán),《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定。我國(guó)理論界對(duì)雇主替代責(zé)任的研究也多集中于雇傭關(guān)系、雇傭過(guò)程的判定、雇主替代責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則等方面,對(duì)雇主替代責(zé)任的內(nèi)部追償問(wèn)題很少涉及且看法不一。而現(xiàn)實(shí)中又存在大量雇主承擔(dān)替代責(zé)任的案件,雇主試圖通過(guò)對(duì)雇員追償來(lái)彌補(bǔ)自身的損失。立法上的不確定與理論研究上的分歧使得雇主的追償權(quán)存在模糊性,法院在判案時(shí)沒(méi)有可以統(tǒng)一適用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),導(dǎo)致出現(xiàn)同案異判的情況。因此雇主替代責(zé)任的內(nèi)部追償問(wèn)題值得關(guān)注。本文試圖通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)外雇主替代責(zé)任的內(nèi)部追償制度進(jìn)行比較考察,并結(jié)合我國(guó)立法和司法實(shí)踐的現(xiàn)狀,對(duì)我國(guó)雇主替代責(zé)任的內(nèi)部追償問(wèn)題作詳細(xì)探討。 除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)語(yǔ)以外,全文分為三章。 第一章“雇主追償權(quán)的域外考察”,主要對(duì)普通法、歐洲大陸法、日本與我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的雇主替代責(zé)任的內(nèi)部追償問(wèn)題進(jìn)行考察。本章并不是單純地介紹外國(guó)的法律,對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)的域外考察是為了借鑒,為研究我國(guó)的相關(guān)問(wèn)題提供比較法上的建議。 從所考察地區(qū)的法律規(guī)定及判例的發(fā)展來(lái)看,各國(guó)普遍都確立了雇主替代責(zé)任制度。對(duì)雇主替代責(zé)任的規(guī)定有兩種立法模式：一是德國(guó)式的過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任模式,另一種是英美侵權(quán)法的替代責(zé)任模式。立法模式上的差異,導(dǎo)致各國(guó)在雇主追償權(quán)的問(wèn)題上有所區(qū)別。英美法系國(guó)家一般通過(guò)判例確立了雇主對(duì)雇員有追償?shù)臋?quán)利。在大陸法系國(guó)家,雇主追償權(quán)有兩種立法例,一是在法典內(nèi)部立法規(guī)定了雇主的追償權(quán),如日本民法典、法國(guó)民法典、臺(tái)灣民法等；另一種是在民法典中沒(méi)有直接體現(xiàn),但通過(guò)相關(guān)制度設(shè)計(jì)承認(rèn)了雇主的追償權(quán),比如德國(guó)。換句話說(shuō),民法典中沒(méi)有規(guī)定雇主追償權(quán),并不代表不能追究雇員的責(zé)任。 雖然雇主的追償權(quán)被普遍承認(rèn),但是各國(guó)都趨向于對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)進(jìn)行限制。歐洲大陸法國(guó)家?guī)缀醵紝⒐椭鞯淖穬斚拗圃诠室饣蛑卮筮^(guò)失的范圍內(nèi)。日本通過(guò)立法論、解釋論限制雇主追償權(quán)的行使,解釋論上主要有過(guò)失相抵說(shuō)、不真正連帶債務(wù)說(shuō)、違反信義原則說(shuō)等學(xué)說(shuō)。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)在理論和判例上都主要采用過(guò)失相抵的原則來(lái)限制雇主的追償權(quán)。普通法國(guó)家在實(shí)踐中更是對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)的行使做了很強(qiáng)的限制,更傾向于通過(guò)責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)制度來(lái)彌補(bǔ)雇主的損失和向社會(huì)分散風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。還有理論認(rèn)為,雇主的追償可能破壞雇員與雇主之間的和諧關(guān)系,所以雇主追償權(quán)需要被限制。總的來(lái)看,世界各國(guó)對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)均有所限制,但理論依據(jù)不統(tǒng)一。 第二章“雇主追償權(quán)的證成”,通過(guò)分析雇主追償權(quán)的正當(dāng)性、合法性與合理性,對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)進(jìn)行證成。 首先,從雇主替代責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)來(lái)探討挖掘雇主追償權(quán)的正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)。各國(guó)理論界對(duì)于雇主替代責(zé)任理論基礎(chǔ)的觀點(diǎn)不統(tǒng)一。筆者選取了報(bào)償理論、控制與監(jiān)督理論和公共政策理論三種主流觀點(diǎn)來(lái)探討。通過(guò)分析,筆者認(rèn)為雇主追償權(quán)存在正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ)。 其次,探討雇主追償權(quán)的合法性問(wèn)題。從雇主替代責(zé)任的構(gòu)造來(lái)看,法律對(duì)雇主替代責(zé)任的外部責(zé)任與內(nèi)部責(zé)任都需要作出相關(guān)規(guī)定；從法律解釋的歷史解釋角度來(lái)看,立法者并不排斥雇主追償權(quán)；從司法實(shí)踐的方面來(lái)看,雇主追償權(quán)已經(jīng)得到司法實(shí)踐的認(rèn)可；從“類似情況類似處理”的法理來(lái)看,雇主追償權(quán)的確立可以避免價(jià)值違反。因此,我國(guó)法律對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)的沉默構(gòu)成法律漏洞,雇主追償權(quán)具備合法性。 最后,追尋雇主追償權(quán)的合理性。雇主對(duì)雇員的追償具備法理上的合理性。雇主追償制度不僅可以保護(hù)受害人的利益,也可以有效均衡雇主與雇員之間利益,具備建立的必要性。結(jié)合我國(guó)雇主責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)的推廣情況,雇主追償權(quán)的存在更具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 第三章“雇主追償權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)”,本章在肯定雇主追償權(quán)的前提下探討雇主追償權(quán)的行使問(wèn)題。通過(guò)借鑒比較法上的做法和總結(jié)我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐的現(xiàn)狀,對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)的成立要件、雇主追償?shù)姆秶葐?wèn)題進(jìn)行研究。這也是本文最具有實(shí)踐意義的部分。 首先,雇主追償權(quán)的成立應(yīng)當(dāng)具備三個(gè)要件。一是雇主已經(jīng)對(duì)受害人進(jìn)行了賠償。二是雇員執(zhí)行職務(wù)不當(dāng)。這個(gè)要件中涉及到對(duì)雇員職務(wù)行為的再次認(rèn)定,再次認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)當(dāng)嚴(yán)格于雇主對(duì)外承擔(dān)責(zé)任時(shí)職務(wù)行為的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。三是雇員主觀心態(tài)屬于故意或者重大過(guò)失。將雇主追償權(quán)限制在雇員故意或重大過(guò)失的范圍內(nèi)是世界各國(guó)的普遍做法。這種限制符合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、利益的均衡原則與基本法律倫理,也具有現(xiàn)實(shí)的可操作性,不僅能激勵(lì)雇主對(duì)雇員施行有效監(jiān)督,也可以保持雇員工作的積極性與創(chuàng)造性。 其次,探尋雇員與雇主內(nèi)部責(zé)任如何分擔(dān)。當(dāng)雇傭合同沒(méi)有約定時(shí),雙方的責(zé)任分擔(dān)就屬于法官行使自由裁量權(quán)的范圍。在我國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐中,主要考慮雙方主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)程度和經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)能力這兩個(gè)因素來(lái)確定雇主與雇員內(nèi)部責(zé)任的分擔(dān),先分別對(duì)雇主和雇員的主觀過(guò)錯(cuò)程度進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,再進(jìn)行比較,最終確定責(zé)任分擔(dān)。同時(shí)要兼顧雇主與雇員的經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)能力,尤其要適當(dāng)保護(hù)雇員的利益,保障其正常的生活。雇主追償?shù)姆秶c數(shù)額并沒(méi)有固定的限制,應(yīng)在基本原則下根據(jù)案件的具體情況靈活確定。 最后,在雇主對(duì)雇員行使追償權(quán)時(shí),考慮到雇員的弱勢(shì)地位,有必要對(duì)雇員的支付方式加以規(guī)制。采用一次性付清還是分期支付的方式以及分期付款額度的確定都要充分考慮雇員的經(jīng)濟(jì)情況,以保護(hù)雇員的合法權(quán)益。另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是,如果雇主購(gòu)買了相應(yīng)保險(xiǎn),損害賠償已轉(zhuǎn)由保險(xiǎn)人負(fù)擔(dān),對(duì)此損失不發(fā)生追償問(wèn)題,以體現(xiàn)民事責(zé)任的補(bǔ)償功能。但是如果法律規(guī)定雇主應(yīng)當(dāng)為雇員購(gòu)買保險(xiǎn)而未購(gòu)買,發(fā)生的損失本來(lái)應(yīng)向保險(xiǎn)公司轉(zhuǎn)嫁,但這部分損失因雇主的過(guò)錯(cuò)只能由雇主自行承擔(dān),不能向雇員追償。 作為雇主替代責(zé)任的延續(xù),雇主對(duì)雇員的追償解決的是雇傭關(guān)系內(nèi)部的責(zé)任承擔(dān)問(wèn)題。由于實(shí)踐中的案件紛繁復(fù)雜,本文只能對(duì)雇主追償權(quán)的行使提供原則性參考。對(duì)此問(wèn)題的研究也尚處于起步階段,有待進(jìn)一步深入。
[Abstract]:In the social and large-scale production and management of the modern division of labor, it is impossible for both the enterprise and the individual to take the power of others to engage in a certain job or cause. Therefore, in the scope of the law, hiring others to engage in a certain job has become a prominent feature of the modern society. The employer's responsibility system arises at the historic moment of the relationship between the third and the employee. The general employer's responsibility includes two aspects: one is the employer's responsibility for the employee's damage in the execution of the job, and the two is the employer's responsibility for the damage to the third person during the execution of the job. The former is given in the labor law. We should pay enough attention to the latter, which belongs to the scope of civil liability. The employer's vicarious liability in this article refers to that the employer should bear the liability of the employee to compensate the third party.
In view of the strong economic status of the employer and the protection of the interests of the victims, the employer's replacement liability system is stipulated by the law of our country. There is no clear regulation on whether the employer has the right of recourse to the employee after the employer has taken the liability for damages to the victim, and the tort liability law is not clearly stipulated. The relationship, the determination of the process of employment, the principle of the replacement responsibility of the employer, and so on, there are few and different views on the internal recourse of the employer's replacement responsibility. In reality, there are a large number of cases in which employers undertake the replacement responsibility. The employer tries to compensate for their losses by the compensation of employees. The legislative uncertainty and theoretical study The differences between them make the employer's right of recourse fuzzy, and the court does not have a unified standard in the case of the case, which leads to the case of the same case. Therefore, the internal recourse problem of the employer's replacement responsibility is worth paying attention to. This article tries to compare the internal compensation system of the replacement responsibility of the foreign employers and combine with my national state. The present situation of law and judicial practice, and the internal recovery of employer's vicarious liability in China are discussed in detail.
Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into three chapters.
The first chapter, "the extraterritorial investigation of the right of employer's recourse", mainly investigates the internal recourse of the replacement responsibility of the employers in the common law, the European continent law, Japan and the Taiwan region of our country. This chapter does not simply introduce foreign laws, the extraterritorial investigation of the right of recourse for employers is for reference and provides a comparison of the relevant problems in our country. A more legal suggestion.
From the legal provisions and the development of the jurisprudence of the inspecting area, the employer replacement responsibility system is generally established in all countries. There are two legislative modes for the replacement responsibility of employers: one is the German type of fault liability model, the other is the mode of replacement responsibility of the Anglo American tort law. There are differences in the issue of rights. Common law countries generally establish the right of employers to recourse employees through jurisprudence. In civil law countries, the right of recourse for employers has two legislations, one is that the internal legislation of the civil law stipulates the right of recourse for employers, such as the civil code of Japan, the civil code of the law, the civil law of Taiwan and so on; the other is in the civil code. It is not directly reflected, but it recognizes the right of recourse by the employer, for example, Germany. In other words, the civil code does not specify the right of recourse for the employer, which does not represent the liability of the employee.
Although the right of the employer's recourse is universally acknowledged, all countries tend to restrict the right to recourse to employers. The European continental law countries almost limit the compensation of employers to the scope of deliberate or major negligence. In the theory and jurisprudence of Taiwan, the principle of negligent offset is mainly used to limit the right of the employer's recourse. In practice, the ordinary law countries have made a strong restriction on the exercise of the right of recourse for employers, and more inclined to make up for the employer's loss and to the social division through the system of liability insurance. In addition, the theory holds that the employer's recourse may destroy the harmonious relationship between the employee and the employer, so the right of the employer's recourse needs to be restricted. In general, the countries of the world have restricted the right of recourse for employers, but the theoretical basis is not uniform.
The second chapter is about the justification of employer's right of recourse. By analyzing the legitimacy, legitimacy and rationality of employer's right of recourse, the employer's right to recourse is identified.
First, from the theoretical basis of the employer's replacement responsibility, this paper discusses the legitimacy basis of the employer's right of recourse. The views of the theorists on the basis of the employer's replacement responsibility are not unified. The author chooses the theory of compensation, the theory of control and supervision and the theory of public policy. Through analysis, the author thinks that the employer is recourse to three. Right has the basis of legitimacy.
Secondly, it discusses the legality of the right of employer's recourse. From the structure of employer's replacement responsibility, the law needs to make relevant provisions on the external responsibility and internal responsibility of the employer's replacement responsibility. From the perspective of historical interpretation of the legal interpretation, the legislator does not exclude the right of recourse from the employer; from the judicial practice, the right of the employer's recourse is in the judicial practice. It has been recognized by judicial practice; from the jurisprudence of similar situation similar treatment, the establishment of the right of employer's recourse can avoid the violation of value. Therefore, the silence of our law on the right of recourse of employers constitutes a legal loophole, and the right of the employer's recourse is legitimate.
Finally, it is reasonable to pursue the right of the employer's recourse. The employer's compensation for the employee has legal rationality. The employer's recourse system can not only protect the interests of the victim, but also effectively balance the interests between the employer and the employee. It's realistic.
In the third chapter, "the realization of the right of employer's recourse", this chapter discusses the exercise of the right of recourse of employers under the premise of affirming the right of recourse of employers. By drawing on the practice of comparative law and summarizing the current situation of judicial practice in our country, this paper studies the establishment of the right of recourse and the scope of employers' recovery. This is the most practical meaning of this article. The part of righteousness.
First, the establishment of the right of recourse for the employer should have three important elements. One is that the employer has made a compensation for the victim. Two is the employee's misconduct. This element involves the re determination of the employee's job behavior. The standard of re confirmation should be strictly the standard of identifying the job behavior when the employer is responsible for the responsibility. Three is the employee. The subjective mentality is intentional or gross negligence. It is a universal practice in the world to restrict the right of the employer's recourse to the intentional or major negligence of the employee. This restriction is in line with the risk, the principle of balance of interests and the basic legal ethics, as well as the practical maneuverability, can not only encourage the employers to perform effective supervision on the employees, but also can be used to supervise the employees. Maintain the enthusiasm and creativity of the employee's work.
Secondly, to find out how to share the internal responsibility of the employee and the employer. When the employment contract is not scheduled, the responsibility sharing between the two parties is the scope of the discretion of the judge. In the judicial practice of our country, the two factors, such as the subjective fault degree and the economic burden of the two parties, are the main considerations to determine the share of the internal responsibility of the employer and the employee. First, the subjective fault degree of employers and employees is identified, and then the responsibility sharing is finally determined. At the same time, the economic burden of employers and employees should be taken into account, especially to protect the employees' interests and ensure their normal life. The scope and amount of the employer's recovery should be under the basic principles. The specific circumstances of the case are flexible.
Finally, when the employer is exercising the right of recourse to the employee, it is necessary to regulate the employee's way of payment, considering the disadvantaged position of the employee. The use of one-time payment or installment payment and the determination of the installment amount should fully consider the employee's economic situation in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the employees. The employer has purchased the corresponding insurance, and the damages have been transferred to the insurer. The loss does not occur in recourse to embody the compensation function of the civil liability. However, if the law stipulates that the employer should buy insurance for the employee and not buy it, the loss should have been transferred to the insurance company, but this part of the loss can only be caused by the employer's fault. The employer is responsible for it and can not recourse to the employee.
As the continuation of the replacement responsibility of the employer, the employer's compensation for the employee's recovery is the responsibility of the employment relationship. Because of the complicated cases in the practice, this article can only provide the principle reference for the exercise of the right of compensation for employers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 魏樹發(fā),江欽輝;雇主責(zé)任制度若干問(wèn)題辨析——兼評(píng)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理人身?yè)p害賠償案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》第九條的規(guī)定[J];福建師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年01期

2 毛瑞兆;論雇主的替代責(zé)任[J];政法論壇;2004年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 王辛芯;雇主責(zé)任制度比較研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

2 張麗麗;雇傭關(guān)系的界定及其法律調(diào)整模式[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

3 謝艷艷;雇主替代責(zé)任制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2007年

4 梁艷;雇員侵權(quán)的雇主責(zé)任[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2065483