發(fā)布時間：2018-06-25 09:39

  本文選題：雇主替代責任 + 雇主追償權　； 參考：《西南財經大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)代分工明細的社會及大規(guī)模的生產經營中,無論是企業(yè)還是個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,雇傭他人從事某項工作已經成為現(xiàn)代社會的顯著特點。為規(guī)制雇主、雇員和第三人之間的關系,雇主責任制度應運而生。廣義的雇主責任包含兩個方面：一是雇主對雇員在執(zhí)行職務中所受損害應承擔的責任；二是雇主對雇員在執(zhí)行職務過程中對第三人造成的損害應承擔的責任。前者在勞動法上給予了充分重視,后者則屬于民事責任的范圍。本文的雇主替代責任所指的就是雇主應承擔雇員對第三人致害的賠償責任。 出于雇主的強勢經濟地位和保護受害人利益的考慮,我國法律規(guī)定了雇主替代責任制度。新出臺的《侵權責任法》將雇主替代責任從《最高人民法院關于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》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任與狹義雇主責任區(qū)分)改變?yōu)榻y(tǒng)一的“替代責任”模式,但雇主對受害人承擔了損害賠償責任之后是否對雇員享有追償權,《侵權責任法》沒有明確規(guī)定。我國理論界對雇主替代責任的研究也多集中于雇傭關系、雇傭過程的判定、雇主替代責任的歸責原則等方面,對雇主替代責任的內部追償問題很少涉及且看法不一。而現(xiàn)實中又存在大量雇主承擔替代責任的案件,雇主試圖通過對雇員追償來彌補自身的損失。立法上的不確定與理論研究上的分歧使得雇主的追償權存在模糊性,法院在判案時沒有可以統(tǒng)一適用的標準,導致出現(xiàn)同案異判的情況。因此雇主替代責任的內部追償問題值得關注。本文試圖通過對國外雇主替代責任的內部追償制度進行比較考察,并結合我國立法和司法實踐的現(xiàn)狀,對我國雇主替代責任的內部追償問題作詳細探討。 除導論和結語以外,全文分為三章。 第一章“雇主追償權的域外考察”,主要對普通法、歐洲大陸法、日本與我國臺灣地區(qū)的雇主替代責任的內部追償問題進行考察。本章并不是單純地介紹外國的法律,對雇主追償權的域外考察是為了借鑒,為研究我國的相關問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)展來看,各國普遍都確立了雇主替代責任制度。對雇主替代責任的規(guī)定有兩種立法模式：一是德國式的過錯責任模式,另一種是英美侵權法的替代責任模式。立法模式上的差異,導致各國在雇主追償權的問題上有所區(qū)別。英美法系國家一般通過判例確立了雇主對雇員有追償?shù)臋嗬�。在大陸法系國�?雇主追償權有兩種立法例,一是在法典內部立法規(guī)定了雇主的追償權,如日本民法典、法國民法典、臺灣民法等；另一種是在民法典中沒有直接體現(xiàn),但通過相關制度設計承認了雇主的追償權,比如德國。換句話說,民法典中沒有規(guī)定雇主追償權,并不代表不能追究雇員的責任。 雖然雇主的追償權被普遍承認,但是各國都趨向于對雇主追償權進行限制。歐洲大陸法國家?guī)缀醵紝⒐椭鞯淖穬斚拗圃诠室饣蛑卮筮^失的范圍內。日本通過立法論、解釋論限制雇主追償權的行使,解釋論上主要有過失相抵說、不真正連帶債務說、違反信義原則說等學說。臺灣地區(qū)在理論和判例上都主要采用過失相抵的原則來限制雇主的追償權。普通法國家在實踐中更是對雇主追償權的行使做了很強的限制,更傾向于通過責任保險制度來彌補雇主的損失和向社會分散風險。還有理論認為,雇主的追償可能破壞雇員與雇主之間的和諧關系,所以雇主追償權需要被限制�？偟膩砜�,世界各國對雇主追償權均有所限制,但理論依據(jù)不統(tǒng)一。 第二章“雇主追償權的證成”,通過分析雇主追償權的正當性、合法性與合理性,對雇主追償權進行證成。 首先,從雇主替代責任的理論基礎來探討挖掘雇主追償權的正當性基礎。各國理論界對于雇主替代責任理論基礎的觀點不統(tǒng)一。筆者選取了報償理論、控制與監(jiān)督理論和公共政策理論三種主流觀點來探討。通過分析,筆者認為雇主追償權存在正當性基礎。 其次,探討雇主追償權的合法性問題。從雇主替代責任的構造來看,法律對雇主替代責任的外部責任與內部責任都需要作出相關規(guī)定；從法律解釋的歷史解釋角度來看,立法者并不排斥雇主追償權；從司法實踐的方面來看,雇主追償權已經得到司法實踐的認可；從“類似情況類似處理”的法理來看,雇主追償權的確立可以避免價值違反。因此,我國法律對雇主追償權的沉默構成法律漏洞,雇主追償權具備合法性。 最后,追尋雇主追償權的合理性。雇主對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。結合我國雇主責任保險的推廣情況,雇主追償權的存在更具有現(xiàn)實意義。 第三章“雇主追償權的實現(xiàn)”,本章在肯定雇主追償權的前提下探討雇主追償權的行使問題。通過借鑒比較法上的做法和總結我國司法實踐的現(xiàn)狀,對雇主追償權的成立要件、雇主追償?shù)姆秶葐栴}進行研究。這也是本文最具有實踐意義的部分。 首先,雇主追償權的成立應當具備三個要件。一是雇主已經對受害人進行了賠償。二是雇員執(zhí)行職務不當。這個要件中涉及到對雇員職務行為的再次認定,再次認定的標準應當嚴格于雇主對外承擔責任時職務行為的認定標準。三是雇員主觀心態(tài)屬于故意或者重大過失。將雇主追償權限制在雇員故意或重大過失的范圍內是世界各國的普遍做法。這種限制符合風險、利益的均衡原則與基本法律倫理,也具有現(xiàn)實的可操作性,不僅能激勵雇主對雇員施行有效監(jiān)督,也可以保持雇員工作的積極性與創(chuàng)造性。 其次,探尋雇員與雇主內部責任如何分擔。當雇傭合同沒有約定時,雙方的責任分擔就屬于法官行使自由裁量權的范圍。在我國的司法實踐中,主要考慮雙方主觀過錯程度和經濟負擔能力這兩個因素來確定雇主與雇員內部責任的分擔,先分別對雇主和雇員的主觀過錯程度進行認定,再進行比較,最終確定責任分擔。同時要兼顧雇主與雇員的經濟負擔能力,尤其要適當保護雇員的利益,保障其正常的生活。雇主追償?shù)姆秶c數(shù)額并沒有固定的限制,應在基本原則下根據(jù)案件的具體情況靈活確定。 最后,在雇主對雇員行使追償權時,考慮到雇員的弱勢地位,有必要對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濟情況,以保護雇員的合法權益。另一個問題是,如果雇主購買了相應保險,損害賠償已轉由保險人負擔,對此損失不發(fā)生追償問題,以體現(xiàn)民事責任的補償功能。但是如果法律規(guī)定雇主應當為雇員購買保險而未購買,發(fā)生的損失本來應向保險公司轉嫁,但這部分損失因雇主的過錯只能由雇主自行承擔,不能向雇員追償。 作為雇主替代責任的延續(xù),雇主對雇員的追償解決的是雇傭關系內部的責任承擔問題。由于實踐中的案件紛繁復雜,本文只能對雇主追償權的行使提供原則性參考。對此問題的研究也尚處于起步階段,有待進一步深入。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：西南財經大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前2條

1 魏樹發(fā),江欽輝;雇主責任制度若干問題辨析——兼評《最高人民法院關于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》第九條的規(guī)定[J];福建師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2005年01期

2 毛瑞兆;論雇主的替代責任[J];政法論壇;2004年03期

相關碩士學位論文 前4條

1 王辛芯;雇主責任制度比較研究[D];華東政法學院;2005年

2 張麗麗;雇傭關系的界定及其法律調整模式[D];吉林大學;2006年

3 謝艷艷;雇主替代責任制度研究[D];鄭州大學;2007年

4 梁艷;雇員侵權的雇主責任[D];吉林大學;2007年

，

本文編號：2065483