本文關(guān)鍵詞： 公平責(zé)任 歸責(zé) 損失分擔(dān) 事實(shí)聯(lián)系 社會(huì)保障制度　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：侵權(quán)法是我國(guó)民法體系的重要內(nèi)容,其所確立的過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則、無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則是解決民事糾紛的重要制度。但對(duì)于公平責(zé)任的定位和適用,理論界和實(shí)踐操作中一直頗多爭(zhēng)議,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對(duì)這一問(wèn)題的態(tài)度仍然不甚明朗,且沒(méi)有相應(yīng)的司法解釋能起到定紛止?fàn)幍淖饔谩２粌H使公平責(zé)任的性質(zhì)、適用條件和范圍沒(méi)有明確的法條依據(jù),更導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐操作中缺乏統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),使公平責(zé)任這一直接以“公平”構(gòu)詞的規(guī)則無(wú)法真正發(fā)揮其制度價(jià)值。因此有必要對(duì)這一問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深入探討,以期明晰其定位、找準(zhǔn)其適用條件和范圍。同時(shí)更重要的是結(jié)合審判中的實(shí)際案例,分析公平責(zé)任在實(shí)踐操作中的適用現(xiàn)狀和特殊情況,以理論指導(dǎo)實(shí)踐,從實(shí)踐抽象出理論,從而相互促進(jìn),使公平責(zé)任的理論體系更加完整,為司法實(shí)踐提供一定的借鑒。全文共分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分是公平責(zé)任的概述。筆者論述了公平責(zé)任的概念、特征和歷史沿革。對(duì)其概念的準(zhǔn)確解析可以更好的理解公平責(zé)任的內(nèi)涵,通過(guò)比對(duì),筆者認(rèn)為公平責(zé)任定義的關(guān)鍵在于雙方無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)、公平觀念、適當(dāng)分擔(dān)損失這三個(gè)主要部分,從而給出了更為簡(jiǎn)潔的定義。并通過(guò)其與過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任、無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任的比對(duì),進(jìn)一步明確公平責(zé)任概念的內(nèi)涵。從概念出發(fā),總結(jié)出公平責(zé)任之特點(diǎn)。并分析從其萌芽到正式確立的三個(gè)重要階段,從而明晰其源流,把握脈絡(luò)。第二部分是公平責(zé)任的定位。主要圍繞公平責(zé)任是否為歸責(zé)原則進(jìn)行論述。公平責(zé)任在適用上的爭(zhēng)議根源在于對(duì)其定位的爭(zhēng)議,筆者閱讀相關(guān)著作、期刊,發(fā)現(xiàn)很多學(xué)者仍然認(rèn)為公平責(zé)任屬于歸責(zé)原則,從而夸大了其作用和適用范圍,一定程度上侵蝕了過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任和無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則的空間。因此筆者從學(xué)界爭(zhēng)議出發(fā),著重分析公平責(zé)任不屬于歸責(zé)原則的原因,并得出其屬于損失分擔(dān)規(guī)則的結(jié)論。第三部分是公平責(zé)任的適用條件和范圍。首先從理論上分析公平責(zé)任的適用條件主要包括過(guò)錯(cuò)因素、窮盡其他責(zé)任形式、事實(shí)聯(lián)系、綜經(jīng)濟(jì)情況這四個(gè)方面。再重點(diǎn)結(jié)合筆者查找的大量司法案例,歸納出實(shí)踐中適用公平責(zé)任的常見(jiàn)類型,按照客觀無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)和認(rèn)定無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)的分類逐一分析,每種類型均舉出具體案例,有針對(duì)性的闡述其適用范圍,使論述更加清晰明了。第四部分是公平責(zé)任適用中的特殊問(wèn)題。筆者舉出具有代表性的四個(gè)典型案例,來(lái)闡述審判中關(guān)于公平責(zé)任適用的常見(jiàn)誤區(qū),進(jìn)一步明確公平責(zé)任在具體適用中應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題,使公平責(zé)任在司法實(shí)踐中更具可操作性。最后筆者認(rèn)為公平責(zé)任由于其自身的性質(zhì)和特點(diǎn),極易導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中的濫用,對(duì)此應(yīng)積極引入社會(huì)保障制度,打破公平責(zé)任承載過(guò)多社會(huì)和道德屬性的局面。
[Abstract]:The tort law is the important content of the civil law system of our country. The principle of fault liability and the principle of no-fault liability are the important systems to solve civil disputes, but the orientation and application of fair liability. There has been a lot of controversy in theory and practice. The attitude of Tort liability Law to this issue is still unclear, and there is no corresponding judicial interpretation can play a role in settling disputes, not only make the nature of fair liability. There is no clear legal basis for the conditions and scope of application, which leads to the lack of uniform standards in practice. It is necessary to probe into this problem in order to clarify its position because the rules of "fair" formation can not really give play to its system value. At the same time, it is more important to analyze the current situation and special situation of fair responsibility in practice, guide the practice by theory, and abstract the theory from practice. In order to promote each other, make the theoretical system of fair responsibility more complete. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of fair liability. The author discusses the concept of fair responsibility. Characteristics and historical evolution. The accurate analysis of its concept can better understand the connotation of fair responsibility. By comparison, the author believes that the key to the definition of fair responsibility lies in the concept of fairness without fault. Appropriate allocation of loss these three main parts, thus giving a more concise definition. And through its comparison with fault liability, no-fault liability, further clarify the connotation of the concept of fair liability, starting from the concept. This paper summarizes the characteristics of fair responsibility and analyzes the three important stages from its germination to formal establishment so as to clarify its origin and flow. Grasp the context. The second part is the positioning of fair liability. Mainly around whether fair liability is the principle of imputation. The dispute on the application of fair responsibility lies in the controversy of its positioning. The author read the relevant works. Journals, found that many scholars still believe that fair liability belongs to the principle of imputation, thus exaggerating its role and scope of application. To some extent, it erodes the space of the principle of fault liability and no-fault liability. Therefore, the author focuses on the analysis of the reasons why fair liability does not belong to the principle of imputation. The third part is the applicable conditions and scope of fair liability. Firstly, the theoretical analysis of the applicable conditions of fair liability mainly includes fault factors, exhausted other forms of liability. Combined with a large number of judicial cases, the author summarizes the common types of fair liability in practice. According to the objective no-fault and the classification of no-fault analysis, each type of specific cases are cited, focused on its scope of application. Part 4th is a special problem in the application of fair liability. The author cited four representative typical cases to explain the common misunderstandings about the application of fair responsibility in the trial. In order to make the fair responsibility more operable in the judicial practice, the author thinks that the fair responsibility is due to its own nature and characteristics. It is easy to lead to abuse in practice, so we should actively introduce social security system to break the situation that fair responsibility carries too many social and moral attributes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 楊立新;;世界侵權(quán)法的歷史源流及融合與統(tǒng)一[J];福建論壇(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年06期

2 王成;;侵權(quán)法歸責(zé)原則的理念及配置[J];政治與法律;2009年01期

3 王成;魯智勇;;高空拋物侵權(quán)行為探究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2007年02期

4 小口,彥太;日中侵權(quán)行為法的比較[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;1999年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1471154