本文選題：網(wǎng)約車 + 機動車侵權(quán)��； 參考：《上海社會科學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：網(wǎng)約車侵權(quán)責(zé)任與普通機動車侵權(quán)責(zé)任的不同之處在于存在作為侵權(quán)主體的網(wǎng)約車平臺,根據(jù)網(wǎng)約車車輛的性質(zhì)、車輛所屬公司與網(wǎng)約車平臺的關(guān)系、平臺在預(yù)約車輛過程中起到的作用等方面可以確認網(wǎng)約車平臺為侵權(quán)責(zé)任主體。駕駛員取得網(wǎng)約車駕駛資格并通過網(wǎng)約車平臺審核,通過網(wǎng)約車平臺進行接單,即可認為是網(wǎng)約車平臺的兼職或全職員工;駕駛員駕駛的車輛取得運營網(wǎng)約車資格并接入網(wǎng)約車平臺,其性質(zhì)是網(wǎng)約車,則駕駛員提供服務(wù)時網(wǎng)約車平臺應(yīng)當(dāng)是侵權(quán)責(zé)任主體。網(wǎng)約車發(fā)生機動車交通事故,駕駛員是實施職務(wù)行為,應(yīng)由網(wǎng)約車平臺承擔(dān)雇主責(zé)任。當(dāng)確定駕駛員與網(wǎng)約車平臺之間的勞動關(guān)系時,應(yīng)考慮駕駛員的工作特點、工作時長和服務(wù)頻次等。無論駕駛員與網(wǎng)約車平臺之間所存在的勞動關(guān)系是全職勞動關(guān)系或者兼職關(guān)系,只要是在承擔(dān)網(wǎng)約車平臺服務(wù)的過程中發(fā)生機動車侵權(quán),駕駛員的侵權(quán)行為均應(yīng)當(dāng)認定是職務(wù)行為,網(wǎng)約車平臺均應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)雇主責(zé)任。在網(wǎng)約車發(fā)生機動車交通事故,且受害人沒有過錯的情況下,對車輛行使直接支配權(quán)的是駕駛員,對車輛行使間接支配權(quán)的是平臺;具有運營利益的是駕駛員、網(wǎng)約車平臺、機動車所有人。網(wǎng)約車平臺享受運營利益,且通過支配駕駛員對網(wǎng)約車行使支配權(quán),應(yīng)承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任,此責(zé)任與雇主責(zé)任競合,這也符合我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的規(guī)定。當(dāng)乘客乘坐網(wǎng)約車發(fā)生機動車事故時,存在網(wǎng)約車侵權(quán)責(zé)任與合同責(zé)任競合,乘客僅能選擇其中一種。如乘客要求網(wǎng)約車平臺承擔(dān)合同責(zé)任,則乘客無權(quán)請求駕駛?cè)�、機動車所有人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任,所請求賠償?shù)姆秶?應(yīng)以雙方合同約定、《合同法》有關(guān)客運合同為依據(jù)。如乘客請求侵權(quán)責(zé)任賠償,則可以要求侵權(quán)網(wǎng)約車平臺、駕駛?cè)�、機動車所有人承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任,請求范圍應(yīng)根據(jù)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》規(guī)定,包括損失、精神賠償?shù)取?br/>[Abstract]:The difference between the tort liability of net car and the tort liability of ordinary motor vehicle lies in the existence of the net car rental platform as the tortious subject. According to the nature of the net car charter vehicle, the relationship between the company belonging to the vehicle and the network car rental platform. The role of the platform in the process of vehicle reservation can confirm that the platform is the subject of tort liability. Drivers can be regarded as part-time or full-time employees of the net car ride platform if they obtain the qualification of driving and pass the examination of the network car ride platform and receive orders through the network car ride platform; The vehicle driven by the driver has the qualification of ride-sharing and access to the ride-hailing platform, the nature of which is that the ride-hailing platform should be the subject of tort liability when the driver provides the service. In the case of motor vehicle traffic accidents, drivers are responsible for their duties and should be held responsible by the network ride-hailing platform. When determining the labor relationship between the driver and the ride-sharing platform, the characteristics of the driver's work, the length of the working hours and the frequency of service should be taken into account. Whether the labor relationship between the driver and the ride-sharing platform is a full-time labor relationship or a part-time relationship, as long as the vehicle infringement occurs in the process of assuming the service of the ride-sharing platform, The driver's tort should be recognized as duty, and the ride-hailing platform should bear the employer's responsibility. In the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident on the net, and the victim has no fault, it is the driver who exercises direct control over the vehicle, the platform who exercises the indirect power over the vehicle, and the driver who has the operating interests, and the platform that has the net car charter. The owner of the motor vehicle. The ride-sharing platform enjoys the operating benefits, and by dominating the driver to exercise the right of control over the net-chartered car, it should bear the liability for compensation, which is in line with the provisions of the Tort liability Law of our country, and the liability of the employer is competing with the liability of the employer. When the passenger rides the net car to have the motor vehicle accident, there exists the net charter car tort liability and the contract liability to match, the passenger can choose only one of them. If the passenger demands that the ride-sharing platform bear the contractual liability, then the passenger has no right to ask the driver and the owner of the motor vehicle to bear the joint and several liability. The scope of the compensation requested shall be based on the agreement between the two parties and the relevant passenger transport contract in the contract Law. If the passenger requests the tort liability compensation, he may request the tortious net car-sharing platform, the driver, the motor vehicle owner to bear the compensation liability, the request scope should be according to the "Tort liability Law" stipulation, including the loss, the spirit compensation and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海社會科學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 曹險峰;張龍;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第49條的解釋論研讀——主體分離下的道路交通事故侵權(quán)責(zé)任論綱[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2017年01期

2 馬一德;;免除或限制責(zé)任格式條款的效力認定[J];法學(xué);2014年11期

3 馮丹丹;;論《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的不足及完善——兼評《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》49條之規(guī)定[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年01期

，

本文編號：1927826