本文選題：共同飲酒　切入點：侵權(quán)　出處：《北方法學(xué)》2017年03期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：通過對我國涉及共同飲酒的142個侵權(quán)案件的判決理由進行類型化分析發(fā)現(xiàn),根據(jù)法院判決對注意義務(wù)的認定,可以區(qū)分為"危險防范義務(wù)"、"安全保障義務(wù)"、"法定附隨義務(wù)"、"一般注意義務(wù)"等。通過在法理上對這些注意義務(wù)的來源進行辨析,其均存在一定問題。在與此相關(guān)的侵權(quán)案件審理中,法官通過擴大注意義務(wù)范圍對社會交往規(guī)則進行調(diào)整,以司法政策為導(dǎo)向的過錯認定有一定弊端,應(yīng)當在侵權(quán)案件審理中堅持司法克制。
[Abstract]:Through the classification analysis of the adjudication reasons of 142 tort cases involving joint drinking in our country, it is found that according to the judgment of the court to the duty of care, It can be divided into "hazard prevention obligations", "safety and security obligations", "statutory collateral obligations", "general duty of care" and so on. In the trial of related tort cases, judges adjust the rules of social communication by expanding the scope of duty of care, and the judicial policy-oriented fault determination has some drawbacks. Judicial restraint should be upheld in the trial of infringement cases.
【作者單位】： 國家法官學(xué)院;
【基金】：司法部國家法治與法學(xué)理論研究項目“審判視野下侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成要件的證成規(guī)則”(13SFB4009) 北京市社科基金一般項目“惡意訴訟行為的侵權(quán)法規(guī)制”(13FXB016)的階段性成果
【分類號】：D923
，

本文編號：1609409