發(fā)布時間：2018-01-17 14:01

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：論過失相抵在特殊體質(zhì)案件中的適用　出處：《天津師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 過失相抵 特殊體質(zhì) 原因力理論 蛋殼腦袋規(guī)則

【摘要】：我國侵權(quán)法目前尚無針對受害人特殊體質(zhì)案件的法律規(guī)定,司法實(shí)踐中各地法院的裁判觀點(diǎn)也不盡相同。最高人民法院于2014年發(fā)布的指導(dǎo)案例24號明確地采用了國外法通行的"蛋殼腦袋"規(guī)則,但對于受害人的特殊體質(zhì)是否能夠適用過失相抵制度,在理論與實(shí)務(wù)界仍存在較大爭議。本文運(yùn)用抽樣分析的方法,收集了最高院指導(dǎo)案例24號發(fā)布前后涉及受害人特殊體質(zhì)的侵權(quán)責(zé)任糾紛案件共計(jì)120例,通過對所收集的全部案例進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì),統(tǒng)計(jì)出持不同觀點(diǎn)的生效判決各自占比,并對其判決理由進(jìn)行了歸納分類。經(jīng)數(shù)據(jù)分析,醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任糾紛案件與機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任糾紛案件占據(jù)所收集案例的絕對多數(shù),但對過失相抵制度的適用又有明顯不同的觀點(diǎn):醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任糾紛案件大多沿用原因力理論,肯定了過失相抵制度在該類案件中的適用,而機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任糾紛案件則大多適用"蛋殼腦袋"規(guī)則,否定了過失相抵制度的適用。通過對比兩種截然不同的裁判觀點(diǎn)的理論依據(jù)及其優(yōu)勢與缺陷,本文在明晰對過失相抵制度在特殊體質(zhì)案件中適用應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)守的價值取向后,對適用過失相抵的一般原則提出了自己的觀點(diǎn),即:首先,對自身人身安全有極高注意義務(wù)的高危體質(zhì)人群,在其沒有采取合理謹(jǐn)慎的防范措施時,應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)為違反了自身的注意義務(wù),具有重大過失,則應(yīng)對其適用過失相抵;其次,對于對損害的擴(kuò)大有注意義務(wù)的特殊體質(zhì)人群,在沒有采取合理措施避免損害的擴(kuò)大的情況下,僅針對擴(kuò)大的損害結(jié)果,應(yīng)當(dāng)對其適用過失相抵;最后,對于對損害結(jié)果缺乏注意義務(wù)的特殊體質(zhì)人群,其對損害沒有過失,不能適用過失相抵。在此基礎(chǔ)上,本文以收集到的典型案件為例,適用本文觀點(diǎn)對案件進(jìn)行了分析,以說明該觀點(diǎn)的合理性及可行性。通過對該觀點(diǎn)的闡述,本文希望為我國司法實(shí)踐中對特殊體質(zhì)案件的法律適用增加理論依據(jù),從而使司法實(shí)踐中對該問題的處理更趨完善。
[Abstract]:At present, there are no legal provisions for the victims' special constitution cases in the tort law of our country. The Supreme people's Court in 2014 issued the guidance case No. 24 definitely adopted the "eggshell head" rule adopted by the foreign law. However, whether the victim's special constitution can be applied to the system of fault offset is still controversial in theory and practice. This paper uses the method of sampling analysis. Collected a total of 120 cases of tort liability disputes involving the victims' special constitution before and after the publication of the Supreme Court guidance case 24, through the collection of all cases of data statistics. Statistics of the different views of the effective judgment ratio, and its reasons for the judgment were classified and analyzed by data. Medical damage dispute cases and motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes cases account for the absolute majority of the collected cases. However, the application of fault offset system has obvious different views: medical injury liability disputes mostly follow the theory of causative force, affirming the application of fault offset system in this kind of cases. But the motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute cases are mostly applied to the "eggshell head" rule, which negates the application of the fault offset system. After clarifying the value orientation that should be adhered to in the application of fault offset system in special constitution cases, this paper puts forward its own views on the application of the general principle of fault offset, that is, first of all. The high risk people who have extremely high duty of care for their personal safety should be considered to have violated their duty of care and have serious negligence when they do not take reasonable and careful preventive measures. The fault shall be applied to it; Secondly, for the special body group with duty to pay attention to the expansion of the damage, if no reasonable measures are taken to avoid the expansion of the damage, only for the result of the damage, the fault should be applied to it. Finally, for the damage of the result of the lack of duty of care for the special body group, its damage has no fault, can not be applied to the fault offset. On this basis, this paper takes the typical cases collected as an example. Apply this viewpoint to the case analysis, to explain the rationality and feasibility of this view. Through the elaboration of this point of view. This paper hopes to increase the theoretical basis for the legal application of special constitution cases in the judicial practice of our country, so as to improve the handling of this problem in judicial practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 王軼;;論侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的損失分配制度[J];社會科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2010年09期

2 楊立新;;論醫(yī)療過失賠償責(zé)任的原因力規(guī)則[J];法商研究;2008年06期

，

本文編號：1436534