發(fā)布時間：2018-04-27 09:25

  本文選題：侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任 + 概念�。� 參考：《暨南大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任為我國獨創(chuàng)的責(zé)任形態(tài),體現(xiàn)了我國立法的積極創(chuàng)新和勇敢嘗試。2009年《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》正式確立了侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任制度。主要解決存在第三人直接侵權(quán)時,安全保義務(wù)人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的問題。但是侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任制度確立以來,卻受到了頗多爭議,補充責(zé)任制度本身存在諸多問題。本文只探討以第三人直接侵權(quán)為前提,補充責(zé)任人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的問題。本文從實踐出發(fā),立足于對傳統(tǒng)補充責(zé)任的認識,挖掘補充責(zé)任存在的矛盾和問題,分析矛盾和問題產(chǎn)生的原因,在此基礎(chǔ)上重新理解補充責(zé)任,對補充責(zé)任的概念進行重新界定,探尋補充責(zé)任性質(zhì)及真正的價值所在,并以此為依據(jù)探尋補充責(zé)任的構(gòu)成和制度適用。本文正文分為四個部分。第一部分首先對侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任做初步介紹,然后列舉案例說明實踐中法院對類似案件采取不同判決,進而引出補充責(zé)任存在的問題。第二部分指出實踐中產(chǎn)生同案不同判的原因,總結(jié)學(xué)者們對于傳統(tǒng)觀念上的補充責(zé)任的概念、性質(zhì)、構(gòu)成要件、適用等方面的不同觀點和理由。立法的含糊和理論界對于這些問題的爭議就是導(dǎo)致司法實踐難以統(tǒng)一的原因。第三部分提出自己的觀點。首先,重新界定補充責(zé)任概念。其次,在這種新概念的基礎(chǔ)之上,重新探索侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任的性質(zhì)及立法價值。侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任既具有保護弱者的侵權(quán)法精神,又具有維護社會和諧和穩(wěn)定的效果,還具有平衡多方利益的功能,同時在理論上也豐富了傳統(tǒng)侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài),既具備理論價值、也具備實踐價值。第四部分重新設(shè)計侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任的制度。首先,重新構(gòu)想補充責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件,提出區(qū)別于傳統(tǒng)三要件或四要件的新四要件。其次,對于補充責(zé)任的具體適用提出構(gòu)想,補充責(zé)任應(yīng)當承擔(dān)第二順位賠償,有限范圍內(nèi)的補充,并且應(yīng)當享有追償權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The tort supplementary liability is the original responsibility form of our country, which embodies the positive innovation and brave attempt of our country's legislation. In 2009, the Tort liability Law formally established the tort supplementary liability system. It mainly solves the problem that the security obligor bears the responsibility when the third party directly infringes. However, since the establishment of the tort supplementary liability system, it has been a lot of controversy, and there are many problems in the supplementary liability system itself. This article only discusses the third person direct infringement as the premise, complements the responsible person to bear the responsibility question. This paper starts from practice, based on the understanding of the traditional supplementary responsibility, excavates the contradictions and problems existing in the supplementary responsibility, analyzes the causes of the contradictions and problems, and reunderstands the supplementary responsibility on this basis. This paper redefines the concept of supplementary responsibility, explores the nature and true value of supplementary responsibility, and explores the constitution and system application of supplementary responsibility. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part makes a preliminary introduction to the supplementary liability of tort, and then enumerates the cases to illustrate that the court adopts different judgments on similar cases in practice, and then leads to the problems existing in the supplementary liability. The second part points out the reasons for different judgments in the same case in practice, and summarizes the different viewpoints and reasons of scholars on the concept, nature, constitutive elements and application of complementary responsibility in the traditional concept. The vagueness of legislation and the controversy of theoretical circle are the reasons why judicial practice is difficult to unify. The third part puts forward one's own viewpoint. First, redefine the concept of supplementary responsibility. Secondly, on the basis of this new concept, we reexplore the nature and legislative value of tort supplementary liability. The tort supplementary liability has not only the spirit of tort law to protect the weak, but also the effect of maintaining social harmony and stability, as well as the function of balancing the interests of various parties. At the same time, it enriches the traditional form of tort liability theoretically and has theoretical value. It also has practical value. The fourth part redesigns the system of tort supplementary liability. First of all, reconceive the constitutive elements of supplementary responsibility, and put forward the new four elements which are different from the traditional three elements or four elements. Secondly, for the specific application of supplementary liability, the supplementary liability should bear the second order compensation, within a limited range of supplementary, and should enjoy the right of recovery.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：暨南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 魏振瀛;論構(gòu)成民事責(zé)任條件的因果關(guān)系[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);1987年03期

2 楊連專;;論侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任中的幾個問題[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年06期

3 張新寶;;我國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的補充責(zé)任[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年06期

4 楊立新;梁清;;原因力的因果關(guān)系理論基礎(chǔ)及其具體應(yīng)用[J];法學(xué)家;2006年06期

5 黃龍;;民事補充責(zé)任研究[J];廣西警官高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報;2007年04期

6 楊垠紅;;侵權(quán)法上不作為因果關(guān)系之判定[J];法學(xué);2014年01期

7 孫維飛;;論安全保障義務(wù)人相應(yīng)的補充責(zé)任——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第12條和第37條第2款的關(guān)系為中心[J];東方法學(xué);2014年03期

8 周斐;;人身損害賠償原因力分析的規(guī)則探討[J];技術(shù)經(jīng)濟與管理研究;2006年03期

9 張新寶,唐青林;經(jīng)營者對服務(wù)場所的安全保障義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)研究;2003年03期

10 楊勝江;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的立法價值取向——以高空拋物為例[J];人民論壇;2011年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 練李生;論侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

2 劉宇;第三人侵權(quán)語境下經(jīng)營者補充責(zé)任研究[D];武漢理工大學(xué);2010年

3 陰文婷;補充責(zé)任制度研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2011年

4 陶興滿;我國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的補充責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

5 宋茜;補充責(zé)任制度研析[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

6 黃彪;論我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》上的補充責(zé)任[D];湖南大學(xué);2011年

7 臧千春;安全保障義務(wù)人對第三人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)[D];華中科技大學(xué);2012年

8 田迪歌;侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

9 張祥林;論安全保障義務(wù)人的補充責(zé)任[D];華南理工大學(xué);2013年

10 張立禹;侵權(quán)補充責(zé)任制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：1810164