本文選題：公共場所管理人 + 安全保障義務(wù)�。� 參考：《華東政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：安全是人類共同的追求,人的一切生存生產(chǎn)活動都離不開安全的社會大環(huán)境。先進的社會生產(chǎn)力帶來了物質(zhì)文明和社會財富的巨大進步的同時,也威脅著人們的人身利益和財產(chǎn)利益。近年來,涉及公共場所的安全事故的糾紛在司法實踐中大量涌現(xiàn)。安全保障義務(wù)制度應(yīng)運而生。我國的安全保障義務(wù)制度,最早以文件形式出現(xiàn)是在《關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》第6條;最早以法律形式出現(xiàn)是在《侵權(quán)責任法》第37條。法律規(guī)定的出現(xiàn)彌補了我國關(guān)于安全保障義務(wù)制度的空白,使得法院在處理此類案件時有法可依。但是由于我國的這項制度發(fā)展時間短,不夠成熟,規(guī)定不靈活,在司法實踐中也存在很多問題,比如A是一個小偷,一日到B經(jīng)營的百貨超市盜竊,在盜竊貨架上商品的過程中,由于B的保潔人員沒有及時將地上的水擦除,A摔傷,此時B是否應(yīng)該賠償A受到的損失,B應(yīng)當保障進入其經(jīng)營場所進行購物的人員的安全,這是沒有疑問的,但是A是盜竊者,進入B的場所是為了損害B的利益,在這種情況下B是否應(yīng)當保障A的安全呢?在司法實務(wù)中,不同的法院就存在不同的觀點,有的法院認為不應(yīng)當賠償,安全保障義務(wù)設(shè)立的初衷是風險與收益相一致的理論,盜竊者進入B的場所,不可能給B帶來收益或者潛在的收益,只會損害B的利益,因此不應(yīng)該對B苛以保障A安全的責任;有的法院則認為應(yīng)當賠償,因為在B的場所內(nèi)的水漬,人只要走過就會摔倒,只是A比較不幸地走過然后摔倒了,水漬的存在對其他消費者的來說也是一種威脅,清除水漬屬于B提供的安全保障的內(nèi)容,既然B沒有履行自己的義務(wù),當然應(yīng)當承擔侵權(quán)責任,賠償A受到的損失;又如我國侵權(quán)法對第三人侵權(quán)與義務(wù)人未盡合理安全保障義務(wù),共同導致相對人受損的情況下,只要求義務(wù)主體承擔“相應(yīng)的補充責任”,這樣的規(guī)定給法院適用相關(guān)法律造成一定的困難,因為“相應(yīng)的”要求法院按照第三人和公共場所的管理人各自的過錯大小承擔責任,但是在很多的案件中,兩者的行為都是造成最后損害結(jié)果的必備的要素,難以對過錯大小進行確定,法院在判決中常常在各自承擔百分之五十責任的基礎(chǔ)上進行加減;再如B是一個高檔的物業(yè)小區(qū),帶有鍛煉設(shè)施,在B小區(qū)旁有一個普通的物業(yè)小區(qū)A小區(qū),A小區(qū)沒有鍛煉的設(shè)施,無法滿足小區(qū)居民鍛煉的需要,于是A小區(qū)的居民就常常跑到B小區(qū)場所內(nèi)進行鍛煉,盡管B小區(qū)“不允許外來人員隨意進入,進出小區(qū)要進行登記”,但是由于難以判斷進入者是否為外來人員,而最終沒有進行登記,一日A小區(qū)的居民C在B小區(qū)鍛煉的過程中,由于B小區(qū)鍛煉器械的老化而摔傷,C要求B對自己承擔賠償責任,因為B未履行安全保障義務(wù),在這則案例中存在的爭議焦點是B小區(qū)是否為公共場所,因為“公共場所”的最大特點就是進入的主體的不特定性,如果B小區(qū)是公共場所,那么C就有權(quán)進入,B就要對C的安全提供保障,如果B小區(qū)不是公共場所,那么C就是無權(quán)進入的人員,而多數(shù)學者受到英美法系相關(guān)理論的影響,認為在私人領(lǐng)域,受邀請進入者才會受到保護,獲邀請者沒有受到保護的權(quán)利。對于這個爭議焦點,有的法院認為,公共場所的一個最主要的特征是“進入主體的不特定性”,盡管B小區(qū)有禁止外來人員進入的告示,但是在實際過程中,B小區(qū)并沒有對進入的人員加以過多的限制,沒有按照告示的規(guī)定,對本小區(qū)以外的人員進入作出限制,外來人員仍然可以“無障礙進入”,因此B小區(qū)應(yīng)當被認定為公共場所,所以C是有權(quán)進入,B就應(yīng)當為其提供保護;有的法院則認為,B盡管是公共場所,但是開放的范圍僅僅是小區(qū)的居民,對于C屬于好意施惠,如果要求B承擔對C的賠償責任,將會使以后這些有鍛煉設(shè)施的小區(qū),不再愿意給小區(qū)以外的居民提供場所,最終居民鍛煉的要求就不能得到充分的滿足,就會更加激化居民鍛煉需求與鍛煉設(shè)施設(shè)備不足的矛盾;有的法院認為,既然B小區(qū)張貼了告示,“外來人員不得進入”,那么B小區(qū)就不是公共場所,C就是未獲邀請的無權(quán)進入者,對于這樣的人B不承擔賠償責任。為了使安全保障義務(wù)制度得到發(fā)展,本文將以《侵權(quán)責任法》第37條為中心,著重對“公共場所管理人”,這樣一個特殊主體的安全保障義務(wù)進行研究。本文分為五個部分,每個部分將分別詳細探討,關(guān)于公共場所管理人安全保障義務(wù)的主體、界定標準、內(nèi)容、違反安全保障義務(wù)的侵權(quán)責任的承擔等基本問題。文章的第一部分是導論,導論部分引入了這篇文章將要研究的問題、資料來源、研究的方法、論文的價值和意義、文章的主要創(chuàng)新點和不足之處。筆者通過之前在法院實習期間,從資深法官處了解到的情況和研讀國內(nèi)法院的經(jīng)典案例的研讀,發(fā)現(xiàn)目前我國的安全保障制度就“公共場所管理人”部分存在五大問題,具體包括:公共場所、管理人的含義,不法進入者是否需要被提供保護,安全保障義務(wù)具體要求有哪些,管理人直接侵權(quán)適用一般過錯原則的歸責原則是否合理,以及第三人介入的侵權(quán)案件中,管理人以相應(yīng)的補充責任的責任承擔方式是否合理,同時,對問題的原因進行了分析。只有站在巨人的肩膀上,才會看得更高、看得更遠,因此在文章中借鑒和分析了多位法學前輩的有益理論,比如王利明、楊立新、馮·巴爾。為了方便之后的論述,我在導論部分進行了文獻的綜述,就筆者提出的五個的問題,對當前學界的觀點進行了歸納和分析;第一章的主要內(nèi)容是關(guān)于安全保障義務(wù)的綜述�？紤]到我國安全保障義務(wù)制度的發(fā)展起步較晚,又是在借鑒大陸法系國家(主要是德國和日本)和英美法系國家相關(guān)理論的基礎(chǔ)上確立和發(fā)展起來的,因此需要追本溯源,探討大陸法系國家(主要是德國和日本)和英美法系國家在民法中關(guān)于這項制度的發(fā)展模式和內(nèi)容規(guī)定,為我國安全保障義務(wù)制度的完善提供一些的思路。因此在這一章中,筆者會詳細介紹兩大法系相關(guān)制度的發(fā)展歷程、制度規(guī)定以及著名案例;第二章的主要內(nèi)容是對“公共場所管理人”以及安全保障義務(wù)的相對人進行界定。首先筆者通過分析德國學者的觀點,提出了界定安全保障義務(wù)主體的一般標準,即對危險的控制力標準和鄰近關(guān)系標準;其次我分別解讀公共場所、管理人的含義,并對目前司法實踐中存在爭議的學校和物業(yè)小區(qū),是否屬于《侵權(quán)法》第37條所稱的公共場所,提出自己的觀點并說明了理由;最后,對該制度的相對人,筆者分情況進行了討論,主要分為兩類,一類是有權(quán)進入,即直接對象和潛在對象,另一類是無權(quán)進入,即好意施惠的對象和不法進入者,并就無權(quán)進入者是否應(yīng)該得到管理人的保護進行探討說明;第三章的主要內(nèi)容是關(guān)于公共場所管理人的安全保障義務(wù)的具體內(nèi)容,即管理人需要采取怎樣的措施,才被認為是已經(jīng)妥善履行了該項義務(wù)。在本章的前半部分我綜合學者的觀點和自己的理解,總結(jié)出界定安全保障義務(wù)內(nèi)容的一般標準,即可預見標準和成本收益標準,并對這兩個標準的內(nèi)容和具體的適用方法進行了闡述。盡管對于安全保障義務(wù)的具體內(nèi)容,學界認為要結(jié)合個案,按照“具體情況具體對待”的原則進行,但是我認為有一些義務(wù)內(nèi)容是基礎(chǔ)性的,只要是該制度的義務(wù)人就要履行,因此,在本章的后半部分,我對這些義務(wù)內(nèi)容,分為硬件方面和軟件方面作了歸納整理,并輔之以案例支撐;第四章的主要內(nèi)容是關(guān)于義務(wù)主體責任承擔的問題。對這個問題筆者論述分為兩部分,一部分是沒有第三介入時,單純因為管理人違反安全保障義務(wù),造成他人損害的情形,在這一部分中,論述的重點在于,采用一般過錯責任原則而非過錯推定責任原則的合理性,以及適用德國法上“推定證明”理論的必要性,另一部分是關(guān)于有第三人介入的情形下,管理人未盡義務(wù)與第三人侵權(quán)行為結(jié)合共同造成相對人損失的情形,此處我會先介紹學界對這個問題的四種主流觀點,之后著重討論我國《侵權(quán)責任法》第37條關(guān)于“相應(yīng)的補充責任”規(guī)定存在的問題,以及我建議采取“補充責任”的理由。文章的最后一部分是結(jié)語。這部分主要內(nèi)容是對上文論述的結(jié)論性總結(jié),回答了導論中提出的問題,介紹了本文的特色和創(chuàng)新點。
[Abstract]:Security is the common pursuit of human beings. All human survival and production activities can not be separated from a safe social environment. Advanced social productivity has brought about the great progress of material civilization and social wealth, as well as the personal interests and property interests of people. In recent years, the dispute involving public places in the judicial practice is in judicial practice. The safety guarantee obligation system emerges as the times require. Our country's security obligation system is first appeared in the form of documents in the interpretation of the sixth articles about the application of law to the cases of personal injury compensation. The first appearance in the legal form is the law of tort, thirty-seventh. The appearance of the law has made up for China's customs. The blank of the security obligation system makes the court in the process of dealing with such cases. But because of the short development time, not mature and inflexible, there are also many problems in the judicial practice, such as A is a thief, a day to the B department store supermarket theft, the process of stealing goods on the shelf. In the case of B's cleaners who have not erased the water on the ground in time, A falls, and whether B should compensate for the loss of A at this time, B should guarantee the safety of the people who enter the shopping site, this is no doubt, but A is a thief, and the place for B is to harm B's interests. In this case, B should guarantee A. In judicial practice, in judicial practice, different courts have different views, some courts think that no compensation should be made. The original intention of setting up security obligation is the theory that risk and income are consistent. The burgler enters the B place, it is impossible to bring B income or potential income, and will only harm the interests of B, so it should not be harsh to B. The responsibility to ensure A safety; some courts think that it should be compensated, because in the place of B water stains, people just walk through the fall, only A unfortunately walked and fell down, the presence of water stains is also a threat to other consumers, the removal of water stains belongs to the content of the security provided by the B, since B did not perform its own The obligation, of course, should bear the liability for tort, compensate for the loss of A, and, in the case of the infringement of the tort law of the third party and the obligation of the obligor, which jointly lead to the damage to the relative person, only the subject of the obligation is required to bear the "corresponding supplementary liability", which will cause the court to apply the relevant laws to a certain extent. It is difficult, because "corresponding" requires the court to take responsibility according to the fault size of the third person and the manager of the public place, but in many cases, the behavior of the two is a necessary element for the result of the final damage. It is difficult to determine the size of the fault. The law court is often responsible for the fifty percent responsibility in the judgment. Add and subtract on the basis of appointment; again, B is a high-end property community, with exercise facilities, there is an ordinary property community A community near the B District, A community does not exercise facilities, can not meet the needs of the community residents exercise, so the residents of the A community often run to the B residential area for exercise, although the B community is "not allowed to go outside." The people will enter freely, entering and leaving the district to register, but because it is difficult to judge whether the entry person is a foreign person or not, and eventually no registration is carried out. In the course of a day of A residents' C in the process of B District exercise, because of the aging of the exercise instruments in the B District, C requires B to bear the liability for themselves, because B has not fulfilled the security guarantee. In this case, the focus of the dispute is whether the B community is a public place, because the biggest feature of the "public place" is the unspecific nature of the main body. If the B community is a public place, then the C will have the right to enter, and the B will provide security for the security of C. If the B community is not a public place, then C is the person of no right to enter. While many mathematicians are affected by the theory of Anglo American law, it is believed that in the private sector, the inviter will be protected and the inviter is not protected. For the focus of the dispute, some courts believe that one of the most important features of the public place is "the unspecific nature of entering the main body", although the B community is forbidden. In the actual process, in the actual process, the B community has not imposed too many restrictions on the people entering, and does not restrict the entry of people outside the community according to the provisions of the notice, and the foreign personnel can still be "accessible", so the B area should be recognized as a public place, so C is entitled to access, B should provide protection for it; some courts think that, although B is a public place, the scope of the opening is only the residents of the community. For the benefit of C, if B is required to take responsibility for the compensation for C, the future community will not be willing to provide a place for the residents outside the community, and the final residents will exercise. The requirement can not be fully satisfied, and it will intensify the contradiction between the residents' exercise demand and the insufficient equipment of the exercise facilities; some courts believe that since the B community posted the notice, "the foreign personnel must not enter", then the B community is not a public place, the C is the unauthorized entry person invited, and no compensation for such a person, B. Responsibility. In order to develop the safety guarantee obligation system, this article will focus on the thirty-seventh article of the tort liability law, focusing on the "administrator of the public places", so as to study the security obligation of a special subject. This article is divided into five parts. Each part will discuss in detail the safety obligations of the managers in public places. The first part of the article is introduction, the introduction part introduces the problems that this article will study, the source of the information, the method of research, the value and significance of the paper, the main innovation and inadequacies of the chapter. The author passed the method before the author. During the internship, from the study of the experience of the senior judges and the study of the classic cases of the domestic courts, it is found that there are five major problems in the current security system of the "public place manager", including the meaning of the public places, the managers, the need for protection and the obligation of security. What are the specific requirements, the rational principle of the direct tort applicable to the general fault principle, and the rationality of the third party's involvement in the tort cases, the manager's responsibility for the corresponding supplementary liability is reasonable, and the cause of the problem is analyzed. Only on the shoulders of the giant will it be seen more and more visible. Further, therefore, in the article, we draw lessons from and analyze the beneficial theories of many legal predecessors, such as Wang Liming, Yang Lixin, von Barr. For the convenience after the discussion, I made a summary of the literature in the introduction part, summed up and analyzed the views of the current academic circles on the five questions put forward by the author; the main content of the first chapter is the closing of the chapter. Taking into account that the development of the security obligation system in China started relatively late and was established and developed on the basis of the related theories of continental law countries (mainly Germany and Japan) and the common law countries, it is necessary to trace the origin and explore the countries of the civil law system (mainly Germany and Japan). The development mode and content of this system in civil law countries provide some ideas for the improvement of our country's security obligation system. In this chapter, the author will introduce the development course of the two legal system related systems, the regulations and the famous cases; the main content of the second chapter is the "public field". The author, as well as the relative of the security obligation, defines the relative people of the security obligations. First, through the analysis of the views of the German scholars, the author puts forward the general standards for the definition of the subject of security obligations, namely, the standard of risk control and the standard of adjacent relations; secondly, I interpret the meaning of the public field, the manager and the current judicial practice. Whether the controversial schools and property communities belong to the "tort law > thirty-seventh" public places, put forward their own views and explain reasons. Finally, the author divides the situation into two categories: the right entry, the direct and the potential, the other is the unauthorized entry, that is, the good intention. The main content of the third chapter is about the specific content of the security obligation of the manager of the public places, that is, what measures should be taken by the manager, so that it is considered to have properly fulfilled the obligation in this chapter. The first half of my comprehensive scholar's views and understanding, summed up the general standards for the definition of security obligations, the standards of foresight and the standard of cost and benefit, and the content of the two standards and the specific methods of application. Although the specific content of the security obligations, the academic community thinks that the combination of cases, According to the principle of "specific situation and specific treatment", but I think that some obligations are basic, as long as the obligor of the system is required to perform. Therefore, in the second half of this chapter, I have summarized the contents of these obligations into hardware and software, supplemented by case support; the main part of the fourth chapter. The content is about the responsibility of the responsibility of the subject of obligation. The author of this question is divided into two parts, part of which is that there is no third intervention, simply because the manager violates the security obligation and causes other people's damage. In this part, the focus of the discussion is to adopt the general fault liability principle rather than the fault presumption responsibility original. The reasonableness of the rule and the necessity of applying the theory of "presumption of proof" on the German law, and the other part of the case where the third party is involved, and the combination of the undone obligations of the manager and the infringement of the third party, causes the loss of relative persons together. Here I will first introduce the four mainstream viewpoints of the academic circle to the question and then discuss the discussion. The thirty-seventh article on "the corresponding supplementary liability" in China's tort liability law and the reasons for my suggestion to take "supplementary responsibility". The last part of the article is the conclusion. The main content is the concluding summary of the above discussion, the questions put forward in the introduction, and the characteristics and innovation points of this article.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅時貴;繆寧;;試析經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];南昌高專學報;2006年04期

2 羅漸;茅曉暉;;經(jīng)營者違反安全保障義務(wù)的歸責問題[J];江蘇警官學院學報;2006年05期

3 洪偉;余甬帆;;試論銀行對客戶的安全保障義務(wù)[J];社會科學家;2006年06期

4 安寧;萬國芬;;完善我國安全保障義務(wù)立法的意義和建議[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2007年09期

5 龍翼飛;魏振瀛;梁書文;江偉;孫曉莉;;從一起案例看公園的安全保障義務(wù)[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2007年06期

6 苗延波;;經(jīng)營者對服務(wù)場所承擔安全保障義務(wù)的類型及其內(nèi)容研究[J];河南省政法管理干部學院學報;2007年02期

7 成明珠;邱雪梅;;論民法中的安全保障義務(wù)[J];求索;2007年04期

8 梁成國;;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];企業(yè)家天地;2007年06期

9 岳衛(wèi)峰;;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];中國環(huán)境管理干部學院學報;2007年02期

10 崔艷;;經(jīng)營者安全保障義務(wù)的合理范圍[J];河南公安高等專科學校學報;2007年04期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 焦曉菲;;論經(jīng)營服務(wù)者的安全保障義務(wù)[A];第一屆全國安全科學理論研討會論文集[C];2007年

2 梁明祥;盧安龍;;淺析物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)的安全保障義務(wù)[A];當代法學論壇（二○一○年第2輯）[C];2010年

3 楊垠紅;;安全保障義務(wù)的羅馬法溯源[A];全國外國法制史研究會學術(shù)叢書——混合的法律文化[C];2007年

4 石紀虎;朱識義;;論商業(yè)銀行對客戶的安全保障義務(wù)——以第三人非法侵害客戶財產(chǎn)為視角[A];中國商法年刊（2008）：金融法制的現(xiàn)代化[C];2008年

5 何穎;;論銀行的安全保障義務(wù)及責任認定——從偽卡盜刷案件切入[A];金融法學家（第五輯）[C];2013年

6 楊垠紅;;論安全保障義務(wù)的學理基礎(chǔ)[A];全國外國法制史研究會學術(shù)叢書——多元的法律文化[C];2006年

7 張偉民;趙俊;;論侵權(quán)責任法上的安全保障義務(wù)[A];第三屆西部律師發(fā)展論壇論文集[C];2010年

8 胡勇軍;;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[A];中國民商法實務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2005年

9 楊垠紅;;我國侵權(quán)立法確立不作為侵權(quán)責任之探討——德國一般安全注意義務(wù)對我國的借鑒[A];全國外國法制史研究會學術(shù)叢書——大陸法系及其對中國的影響[C];2009年

10 楊垠紅;;英美法的作為義務(wù)及其對我國相關(guān)制度的影響與借鑒[A];全國外國法制史研究會學術(shù)叢書——英美法系及其對中國的影響[C];2008年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 朱巍 朱姝;芻議違反安全保障義務(wù)的侵權(quán)責任[N];江蘇法制報;2006年

2 徐錚　作者單位：南京大學法學院;經(jīng)營者對消費者安全保障義務(wù)的評判標準[N];江蘇法制報;2007年

3 鄭冰;經(jīng)營者安全保障義務(wù)的保護對象認定[N];人民法院報;2007年

4 宋凱;醫(yī)院違反安全保障義務(wù)應(yīng)擔責[N];健康報;2008年

5 周玉文;醫(yī)院不能忽視履行安全保障義務(wù)[N];健康報;2008年

6 韓國華;淺談場合管理者的安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2009年

7 石磊;醫(yī)院安全保障義務(wù)的合理限度范圍[N];人民法院報;2010年

8 楊愛成;安全保障義務(wù)之合理限度判斷標準[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2010年

9 汪洋;學校體育場館開放后的安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2011年

10 端學鋒;經(jīng)營場所應(yīng)承擔安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 楊垠紅;侵權(quán)法上安全保障義務(wù)之研究[D];廈門大學;2006年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 夏珍;安全保障義務(wù)研究[D];山東大學;2008年

2 劉鵬;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)及責任承擔[D];中國海洋大學;2008年

3 陳麗;論公共場所的安全保障義務(wù)[D];華東政法大學;2008年

4 許麗陽;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[D];華東政法大學;2008年

5 劉娟;經(jīng)營者違反安全保障義務(wù)的侵權(quán)責任研究[D];西南政法大學;2008年

6 鄒娜;論提供服務(wù)者的安全保障義務(wù)[D];西南政法大學;2008年

7 宋虎;論經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[D];蘇州大學;2008年

8 吳f3炯;論侵權(quán)法上的安全保障義務(wù)[D];山東大學;2008年

9 冉睿;經(jīng)營者違反安全保障義務(wù)的民事責任[D];重慶大學;2008年

10 顧洋;安全保障義務(wù)研究[D];吉林大學;2008年

，

本文編號：1990446