本文選題：多因不明侵權(quán) + 比例責(zé)任��； 參考：《江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)行的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》針對(duì)共同危險(xiǎn)行為、無意思聯(lián)絡(luò)分別侵權(quán)行為、高空拋物致人損害行為等涉及因果關(guān)系不明侵權(quán)的問題制定了責(zé)任分擔(dān)的規(guī)則,通過連帶責(zé)任、平均責(zé)任、補(bǔ)償責(zé)任等方式為受害人提供了法律救濟(jì),體現(xiàn)了對(duì)受害人的傾斜保護(hù)。但是,通過對(duì)生活中的現(xiàn)實(shí)案例進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)要分析和問題總結(jié),我們會(huì)產(chǎn)生以下兩個(gè)困惑:一是因果關(guān)系的困惑,二是責(zé)任分擔(dān)的困惑。因果關(guān)系的困惑主要源自于對(duì)“全有或全無”思維方式的質(zhì)疑,以及反思邏輯上或哲學(xué)上對(duì)原因類型的分類,設(shè)想是否存在第四種原因類型,即“非充分且非必要條件原因”。責(zé)任分擔(dān)的困惑主要源自于對(duì)連帶責(zé)任和平均責(zé)任適用的公平性考察,期望采用“比例責(zé)任”平衡雙方權(quán)益,補(bǔ)正連帶責(zé)任適用的公平性欠缺問題和平均責(zé)任適用的理?yè)?jù)不足問題。為了協(xié)調(diào)行為自由和保護(hù)安全兩方面價(jià)值,平衡受害人與行為人的正當(dāng)利益,使公平正義理念在侵權(quán)責(zé)任分擔(dān)中得以充分體現(xiàn),有必要在多因不明侵權(quán)中適用“比例責(zé)任”。所謂的“比例責(zé)任”可以分為廣義上的比例責(zé)任和狹義上的比例責(zé)任。在多因不明侵權(quán)中所適用的比例責(zé)任主要是指狹義上的比例責(zé)任。比例責(zé)任的適用應(yīng)當(dāng)以比例因果關(guān)系的運(yùn)用為前提。比例責(zé)任在多因不明侵權(quán)中適用的意義主要包括四個(gè)方面:一是符合自己責(zé)任原則;二是符合侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成理論中的矯正正義;三是符合侵權(quán)責(zé)任分擔(dān)理論中的分配正義;四是符合侵權(quán)責(zé)任法威懾目的的價(jià)值追求。此外,扎實(shí)的國(guó)內(nèi)基礎(chǔ)和豐富的國(guó)外經(jīng)驗(yàn)是適用比例責(zé)任的另外兩個(gè)重要理由。國(guó)內(nèi)現(xiàn)有的多數(shù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度主要對(duì)三種多因不明侵權(quán)類型制定了明晰的責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)則,這三種多因不明侵權(quán)類型分別為共同危險(xiǎn)行為、“分別實(shí)施,足以造成”的行為、“分別實(shí)施,結(jié)合造成”的行為。但是,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中關(guān)于共同危險(xiǎn)行為的責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)則未能有效處理無可責(zé)難的原因作為介入因素參與侵權(quán)的責(zé)任分擔(dān)難題。原因在于,共同危險(xiǎn)行為往往存在因果關(guān)系不明的情形,倘若無限制地對(duì)共同危險(xiǎn)行為人施以連帶責(zé)任,那么有可能使被告承擔(dān)并非由自己行為造成的損害賠償責(zé)任,導(dǎo)致對(duì)被告產(chǎn)生了過度威懾的后果。同時(shí),《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第12條對(duì)于“分別實(shí)施,結(jié)合造成”的責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)定采納了“平均責(zé)任說”。由于“平均責(zé)任說”所固有的“一刀切”和“平均主義”思想未能實(shí)現(xiàn)法律對(duì)不同程度危險(xiǎn)制造者進(jìn)行差異處罰的目的,因此容易導(dǎo)致分別侵權(quán)行為人過多或過少地承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任,從而形成另外一種不公平現(xiàn)象。此外,關(guān)于高空拋物致人損害的責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)則亦存在缺陷,主要表現(xiàn)在兩個(gè)方面:其一,容易形成“無辜者代人受過”的不利后果;其二,具備加害可能性的建筑物使用人具體應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)多少“補(bǔ)償責(zé)任”,法條中并沒有量化規(guī)定。以上國(guó)內(nèi)責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)則的缺陷進(jìn)一步增強(qiáng)了對(duì)比例責(zé)任的適用需求。比例責(zé)任在多因不明侵權(quán)中的適用可以充分借鑒國(guó)外經(jīng)驗(yàn)。域外關(guān)于比例責(zé)任的理論探討和實(shí)踐探索極為豐富多元,涉及的內(nèi)容和角度也是靈活多樣,既包含對(duì)基本概念和規(guī)則的創(chuàng)新解讀,如對(duì)損害的重新定義和對(duì)因果關(guān)系判定規(guī)則的改革等;也包括對(duì)比例責(zé)任適用范圍的界定,如美國(guó)主要適用于大規(guī)模產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)、治愈機(jī)會(huì)喪失,而日本則主要在大氣污染侵權(quán)中適用比例責(zé)任;還包括對(duì)社會(huì)科學(xué)證據(jù)的采納,主要表現(xiàn)為對(duì)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)和統(tǒng)計(jì)概率的認(rèn)可。為了彌補(bǔ)我國(guó)多因不明侵權(quán)責(zé)任分擔(dān)規(guī)則的缺陷,消除人們?cè)趯?shí)踐中存在的因果關(guān)系困惑和責(zé)任分擔(dān)困惑,并進(jìn)一步拓展適用比例責(zé)任的空間,在借鑒域外經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,還可以從以下四個(gè)方面加以努力:一是結(jié)合傳統(tǒng)侵權(quán)法理論中對(duì)于比較過錯(cuò)程度和原因力大小的成熟探索,同時(shí)引入概率理論、法律經(jīng)濟(jì)分析法、市場(chǎng)份額責(zé)任理論、生存機(jī)會(huì)喪失理論及公平正義理念中對(duì)于比例判定的量化思考,從而形成判定“比例”的基本方案;二是明確比例責(zé)任適用的具體領(lǐng)域;三是綜合考慮比例責(zé)任適用的限制因素;四是完善《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的立法條款和民事訴訟的證據(jù)制度與證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:The current "tort liability law" provides legal relief to the victims by means of joint and several liability, average liability and compensation liability for the victims. However, through a brief analysis and a summary of the real cases in life, we will generate two puzzles: one is the perplexity of causality and the two is the confusion of responsibility sharing. The perplexity of the causality is mainly derived from the question of "all or all" thinking, and the reflection logically or philosophically to the original. According to the classification of types, it is conceived whether there are fourth types of reasons, that is, "non sufficient and unnecessary reasons". The confusion of responsibility sharing is mainly derived from the fairness of joint liability and average liability. It is expected to use "proportional liability" to balance the rights and interests of both sides, and to make up for the problem of fairness and the average of the applicable joint and several liability. In order to coordinate the two aspects of the value of freedom of conduct and the protection of safety, balance the legitimate interests of the victims and the perpetrator, and make the concept of fair and justice fully embodied in the share of the liability for tort, it is necessary to apply the "proportion responsibility" to the multi cause unidentified infringement. The so-called "proportional liability" can be divided into a broad sense. Proportional liability in the proportion of proportional liability and the proportional liability in the narrow sense. The proportion liability applied in the torts of ambiguity mainly refers to the proportional liability in the narrow sense. The application of proportional liability should be based on the application of proportional causation. The significance of proportional liability in the multi cause unidentified tort mainly includes four aspects: first, it is in line with its own responsibility. The two is to conform to the correct justice in the theory of tort liability constitution; the three is to conform to the distributive justice in the theory of tort liability sharing; four is the pursuit of the value of the tort liability. In addition, a solid domestic basis and rich foreign experience are another two important reasons for the application of proportional liability. The tort liability system has made clear responsibility sharing rules for the three types of multiple causes of unidentified torts. These three types of multiple causes of unidentified torts are respectively common dangerous acts, "respectively implementation, enough to cause", "separate implementation, combined to cause" behavior. However, the liability for joint dangerous act in the tort liability law The sharing rules fail to effectively deal with the unreproach as a responsibility sharing problem involved in the involvement of the tort. The reason is that the joint dangerous act often has a situation of unknown causality. If the joint liability is not limited to the common perpetrator, the defendant will be able to make the defendant bear not the damage caused by his own behavior. The liability for damages leads to the consequences of excessive deterrence to the defendant. At the same time, the twelfth article of tort liability law adopts the "mean responsibility" for the responsibility sharing provisions of "separate implementation and combination". The purpose of the discrepancy punishment for the dangerous manufacturer is easy to cause the infringer to take on the liability for damages too much or too little, thus forming another kind of unfair phenomenon. In addition, there are also defects in the responsibility sharing rules about the damage caused by high altitude parabolic, mainly in two aspects: first, it is easy to form "innocent person". Secondly, how many "compensation liability" should be undertaken by the users of the building with the possibility of injuring, and there is no quantitative provision in the law. The defects of the above domestic responsibility sharing rules further enhance the application demand for proportional liability. For reference to foreign experience, the theoretical and practical exploration of proportional liability is very rich and diverse, and the contents and angles involved are flexible and diverse, including the innovative interpretation of basic concepts and rules, such as redefining the damage and changing the rules of causality determination, and the definition of the scope of application of proportional liability. For example, the United States is mainly applicable to large-scale product infringement and the loss of healing opportunities, while Japan mainly applies proportional liability in the tort of air pollution; it also includes the adoption of social scientific evidence, which is mainly manifested in the recognition of statistical data and statistical probability. In order to make up for the defects of the rules of shared unidentified tort liability in our country, the elimination of people is eliminated. In practice, there are perplexities of causality and responsibility sharing, and further expand the space applicable to proportional liability. On the basis of foreign experience, we can also make efforts from the following four aspects: first, it combines the mature exploration of the degree of comparative fault and the size of the cause force in the traditional theory of tort law and introduces the probability theory at the same time. On the basis of the theory of legal economic analysis, the theory of market share responsibility, the theory of loss of survival opportunity and the quantitative thinking of proportion judgment in the concept of fairness and justice, the basic plan for determining "proportion" is formed; two is the specific field of specific proportion liability; the three is the comprehensive consideration of the restrictive factors applicable to proportional liability; and the four is to improve the liability for "tort liability". The legislative provisions and the evidence system and standard of proof in civil action.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 李明輝;注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師的過失責(zé)任:連帶責(zé)任抑或比例責(zé)任[J];河北法學(xué);2005年04期

2 杜磊;淺析重復(fù)保險(xiǎn)的若干法律問題[J];遼寧廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

3 石慧榮;馬東;;車險(xiǎn)賠付法律問題研究[J];法治研究;2010年12期

4 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 李若山 朱國(guó)泓;美國(guó)《私人證券訴訟改革法案》[N];華夏時(shí)報(bào);2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 羅燕圓;論英美法上的比例責(zé)任及其借鑒[D];福建師范大學(xué);2015年

2 謝德城;比例責(zé)任在多因不明侵權(quán)中的適用研究[D];江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1985459