本文關(guān)鍵詞： 無(wú)權(quán)占有 占有物侵權(quán) 所有人責(zé)任 占有人責(zé)任 折中主義　出處：《上海師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：近年來(lái),在物件占有與所有分離期間,無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害事件頻發(fā),查閱我國(guó)《民法通則》、《物權(quán)法》以及《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》等相關(guān)法律法規(guī),對(duì)此類侵權(quán)行為并無(wú)明確規(guī)定,更缺少無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害方面的相關(guān)立法�？v觀國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者對(duì)于占有物侵權(quán)的研究成果,在無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害方面,至今也沒(méi)有學(xué)者進(jìn)行清晰的界定和系統(tǒng)的研究。針對(duì)我國(guó)這一現(xiàn)狀,對(duì)比國(guó)內(nèi)外相關(guān)立法上存在的差異,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)國(guó)外對(duì)于無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害這一問(wèn)題,主要有三種代表性的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn):以法國(guó)法和瑞士法為代表的所有人負(fù)責(zé)主義、以德國(guó)法為代表的占有人負(fù)責(zé)主義以及以日本法為代表的折中主義。通過(guò)對(duì)這三種立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的理論基礎(chǔ)及適用加以分析比較,結(jié)合我國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐,本文主要從法律用語(yǔ)、歸責(zé)原則、侵權(quán)形態(tài)三個(gè)方面提出了對(duì)無(wú)權(quán)占有期間占有物致人損害這一問(wèn)題應(yīng)當(dāng)如何完善的相關(guān)建議,以期維護(hù)被侵權(quán)人的相關(guān)合法權(quán)益。由于我國(guó)立法關(guān)于無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物侵權(quán)并無(wú)詳盡的規(guī)定,在占有與所有脫離的情況下沒(méi)有考慮到無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害的民事責(zé)任;在法律用語(yǔ)上,盡管規(guī)定了管理人、使用人等責(zé)任主體,但是這些主體之間的范圍及界定并不明確,從而導(dǎo)致了法律用語(yǔ)不規(guī)范,無(wú)權(quán)占有人與所有人的責(zé)任劃分不清晰;另外,我國(guó)目前相關(guān)立法也沒(méi)有規(guī)定無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則以及責(zé)任承擔(dān)形態(tài)。借鑒國(guó)外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn),針對(duì)我國(guó)立法上存在的諸多問(wèn)題,本文認(rèn)為要完善無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害民事責(zé)任,首先應(yīng)當(dāng)規(guī)范法律用語(yǔ),統(tǒng)一法律用語(yǔ),以占有人、持有人代替管理人和使用人;其次對(duì)于無(wú)權(quán)占有人以及所有人的責(zé)任應(yīng)根據(jù)無(wú)權(quán)占有物的不同性質(zhì)進(jìn)行合理劃分;在歸責(zé)原則上,也應(yīng)根據(jù)占有物的不同性質(zhì)采用不同的歸責(zé)原則,對(duì)于有生命物一般采取無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則,而對(duì)于無(wú)生命物,以過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任為原則;最后對(duì)于侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)以及抗辯事由進(jìn)行合理的完善建議,所有人和無(wú)權(quán)占有人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。筆者認(rèn)為,無(wú)權(quán)占有期間占有物致人損害的案件頻發(fā),必須完善立法規(guī)定,才能真正解決無(wú)權(quán)占有人的占有物致人損害民事責(zé)任當(dāng)前存在的一些不足。
[Abstract]:In recent years, during the period of separation of possession and possession of objects, damage events caused by possession of unauthorized occupants occur frequently. Relevant laws and regulations such as General principles of Civil Law, property Law and Tort liability Law of China are consulted. There is no clear stipulation on this kind of tort, and there is no relevant legislation on damage caused by possession of unauthorized possessor. In the aspect of damage caused by possession of unauthorized possessor, the research results of domestic scholars on the infringement of possession are reviewed. There is no clear definition and systematic research by scholars. In view of the present situation of our country, comparing the differences in relevant legislation at home and abroad, we can find that the problem of damage caused by possession of unauthorized occupants in foreign countries can be found. There are three main types of representative legislative experience: universal accountability, represented by French and Swiss law, By analyzing and comparing the theoretical basis and application of the three kinds of legislative experience, combining with the judicial practice of our country, this paper mainly discusses the legal terms, through analyzing and comparing the possessive responsible doctrine represented by German law and the eclectic doctrine represented by Japanese law, and comparing the theoretical basis and application of these three kinds of legislative experiences. The principle of imputation, the form of tort and the relevant suggestions on how to perfect the problem of damage caused by possession during the period of unauthorized possession are put forward. In order to safeguard the relevant legal rights and interests of the infringed person. As there are no detailed provisions on the infringement of the possession of the unauthorized possessor in our legislation, Without taking into account the civil liability for damage caused by the possession of a person who is not entitled to possession in the event of separation from possession; in legal terms, however, the subject of liability, such as the administrator, the user and the like, is provided for, However, the scope and definition of these subjects are not clear, which leads to irregular legal terms and unclear division of responsibilities between the unauthorized possessor and the owner. At present, the relevant legislation of our country has not stipulated the principle of imputation and the form of liability bearing of the infringement of the possession of the unauthorized possessor. Referring to the foreign legislative experience, this paper aims at the problems existing in the legislation of our country. This paper holds that in order to perfect the civil liability for damage caused by the possession of the unauthorized possessor, we should first standardize the legal terms, unify the legal terms, take the place of the manager and the user by the possessor and the holder; Secondly, the responsibility of the unauthorized possessor and the owner should be reasonably divided according to the different nature of the unauthorized possession; in the principle of imputation, different imputation principles should also be adopted according to the different nature of the possession. The principle of no-fault liability is generally adopted for the living thing, and the principle of fault liability is the principle for the inanimate thing. The author believes that there are frequent cases of damage caused by possession during the period of unauthorized possession, so it is necessary to perfect the legislative provisions. Only then can we really solve some shortcomings existing in the civil liability for damage caused by the possession of the unauthorized possessor.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 韓強(qiáng);;論拋擲物、墜落物致?lián)p責(zé)任的限制適用——《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第87條的困境及其破解[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2014年02期

2 韓強(qiáng);;物件保有人責(zé)任研究 以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第85條為解釋對(duì)象[J];中外法學(xué);2013年02期

3 張民安;;“侵權(quán)行為的構(gòu)成要件”抑或“侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件”之辨——行為人對(duì)他人承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任條件的稱謂[J];政治與法律;2012年12期

4 季境;;占有制度溯源與現(xiàn)代民法之借鑒[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期

5 季境;;占有在現(xiàn)代財(cái)產(chǎn)制度中的地位申明——一種基于動(dòng)態(tài)沖突的考察[J];河北法學(xué);2012年06期

6 谷艷輝;;物件損害責(zé)任比較法研究[J];東北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

7 楊立新;;論不真正連帶責(zé)任類型體系及規(guī)則[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年03期

8 張平華;;侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任的現(xiàn)實(shí)類型[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年02期

9 魏振瀛;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任方式與歸責(zé)事由、歸責(zé)原則的關(guān)系[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2011年02期

10 陳本寒;艾圍利;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任法不可抗力適用規(guī)則研究——兼評(píng)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第29條[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2011年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 袁劍偉;占有物致人損害的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];湖南大學(xué);2014年

2 馬寧;論無(wú)權(quán)占有人對(duì)占有物致他人損害的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1548686