本文選題：監(jiān)護人 + 被監(jiān)護人　； 參考：《吉林大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：《侵權(quán)責任法》第32條承《民法通則》第133之舊例，規(guī)定了被監(jiān)護人侵權(quán)之監(jiān)護人責任，故該條常名為“監(jiān)護人責任”條款。其出臺并未終止學者對于監(jiān)護人責任的爭論。此種爭論主要體現(xiàn)在如下三個方面：一是被監(jiān)護人是否為責任主體？若是，其承擔責任之基礎(chǔ)何在？二是監(jiān)護人責任性質(zhì)應(yīng)該做何種認定？到底是無過錯責任還是過錯推定責任？是自己責任還是過錯推定責任？三是被監(jiān)護人侵權(quán)且被監(jiān)護人有財產(chǎn)時，監(jiān)護人與被監(jiān)護人之間關(guān)系如何？ 對于第一個問題，立法部門和司法部門都認為被監(jiān)護人侵權(quán)時，監(jiān)護人是唯一的責任主體。但是第32條第2款前句又分明規(guī)定了當被監(jiān)護人有財產(chǎn)時，從本人財產(chǎn)中支付賠償費用。顯然，立法部門的觀點是自相矛盾的。為緩解此種矛盾，學者提出了兩種解釋方案：一是認為第32條第2款前句乃被監(jiān)護人與受害人之間的公平責任；二是認為第32條第2款前句乃監(jiān)護人與被監(jiān)護人之間的公平責任。但這兩種解釋理論上都無法推翻被監(jiān)護人是責任主體的結(jié)論。 對于第二個問題，學界通說認為：監(jiān)護人責任是替代責任、無過錯責任。但在討論其責任構(gòu)成時，又普遍認為其責任基礎(chǔ)在監(jiān)護義務(wù)的違反，這就與替代責任的本質(zhì)有所矛盾。同時，認為監(jiān)護人責任是無過錯責任隱含諸多弊端。 對于第三個問題，學界的觀點最為繁復多樣。有學者認為監(jiān)護人與被監(jiān)護人之間應(yīng)該是連帶責任，有學者認為應(yīng)該是公平責任，還有學者認為應(yīng)當是補充責任。第一種觀點是立法論上的建議，無法從文字當中獲得該結(jié)論。后兩個觀點是在否認被監(jiān)護人是責任主體的基礎(chǔ)上，試圖將被監(jiān)護人對受害人的外部賠償關(guān)系內(nèi)化為與監(jiān)護人之間的內(nèi)部關(guān)系。但理論上都不具周延性。 本文通過文義解釋、對比解釋、體系解釋等多種解釋方法梳理第32條后認為，本條涉及主體包括被監(jiān)護人、監(jiān)護人和受害人三方。整條的措辭都圍繞這三者之間的關(guān)系展開，其立法目的也冀圖在這三者間尋得利益之平衡。故對第32條的解釋應(yīng)該從三者之間的相互關(guān)系著手。第一款前句規(guī)定的是監(jiān)護人與受害者之間的關(guān)系，，監(jiān)護人承擔的應(yīng)該是過錯推定責任，責任的基礎(chǔ)在于監(jiān)護義務(wù)的違反，性質(zhì)上屬于自己責任、獨立責任。第一款后句“賠償，但適當減輕”是第24條“不賠，但適當賠償”的反面表述，具有公平責任的性質(zhì)。第二款前句規(guī)定的是被監(jiān)護人與受害者之間的關(guān)系。被監(jiān)護人責任的認定宜依據(jù)第6條采納過錯歸責原則，在尚未承認過錯能力的情形下，不妨參照民事行為能力制度結(jié)合個案具體分析。32條第2款前句僅僅在被監(jiān)護人責任成立后的責任承擔上具有意義。第二款后句則具有指引性條款的作用，監(jiān)護人對不足部分的賠償依據(jù)仍是第1款。監(jiān)護人與被監(jiān)護人在責任構(gòu)成與責任承擔上相互獨立。
[Abstract]:Article 32 of the Tort liability Law follows the old example of Article 133 of the General principles of Civil Law, which stipulates the liability of the guardian who has been infringed by the guardian, so this article is often called the "guardian's responsibility" clause. Its introduction does not end scholars' controversy about guardian responsibility. This kind of argument is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: first, whether the guardian is the subject of responsibility? If so, what is the basis for assuming responsibility? Second, what kind of determination should be made to the nature of guardian responsibility? Is it liability without fault or liability for presumption of fault? Is it your own liability or is it the presumption of fault? Third, what is the relationship between the guardian and the guardian when the guardian infringes and the guardian has property? For the first question, both the legislature and the judiciary agree that the guardian is the sole subject of responsibility when infringed by the guardian. However, the preceding sentence of article 32, paragraph 2, clearly provides for the payment of compensation from one's own property when the guardian has property. Clearly, the legislature's views are contradictory. In order to alleviate this contradiction, scholars put forward two kinds of interpretation schemes: the first is that the preceding sentence of article 32 (2) is the fair responsibility between the guardian and the victim; Second, it is considered that the preceding sentence of article 32, paragraph 2, is the fair duty between the guardian and the guardian. However, neither of these two interpretations can theoretically overturn the conclusion that the guardian is the subject of responsibility. For the second question, scholars generally believe that guardian liability is a substitute liability, no fault liability. However, it is generally believed that the basis of responsibility is the breach of guardianship obligation, which contradicts the essence of substitute responsibility. At the same time, it is believed that guardian liability implies many disadvantages without fault liability. For the third question, academic views are most complex and diverse. Some scholars think that there should be joint and several liability between guardian and guardian, some scholars think it should be fair responsibility, and others think it should be supplementary responsibility. The first is legislative advice, which cannot be drawn from the text. On the basis of denying that the guardian is the subject of responsibility, the latter two views attempt to internalize the external compensation relationship between the ward and the guardian as the internal relationship with the guardian. In theory, however, there is no circumstantial nature. After combing Article 32 by means of interpretation of meaning, contrast and system, the author holds that the subject of this article involves three parties: the guardian, the guardian and the victim. The wording of the whole article revolves around the relationship between the three, and its legislative purpose is to seek a balance of interests among the three. Therefore, the interpretation of article 32 should begin with the interrelation of the three. The relationship between the guardian and the victim is stipulated in the preceding sentence of the first paragraph. The guardian should assume the responsibility of presumption of fault. The basis of the responsibility lies in the breach of the duty of guardianship, which in nature belongs to one's own responsibility and independent responsibility. The negative expression in the chapeau of paragraph 1, "compensation, but with appropriate mitigation", is that in article 24, "not indemnified, but properly compensated", which is of an equitable nature. The preceding sentence of paragraph 2 provides for the relationship between the guardian and the victim. It is appropriate to adopt the principle of fault imputation in accordance with Article 6 of the determination of the liability of the guardian, where the fault capacity has not yet been recognized, Reference to the civil capacity system combined with the specific case analysis .32, paragraph 2 of the preceding sentence only on the responsibility of the guardian after the establishment of the responsibility has significance. The last sentence of the second paragraph has the function of a guiding clause, and the guardian's compensation for the insufficient part is still based on paragraph 1. The guardian and the guardian are independent of each other in the constitution of responsibility and the assumption of responsibility.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 鄭曉劍;;不應(yīng)被淡化的侵權(quán)責任能力——對侵權(quán)責任能力制度若干功能的考察與審思[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2011年06期

2 薛軍;;走出監(jiān)護人“補充責任”的誤區(qū)——論《侵權(quán)責任法》第32條第2款的理解與適用[J];華東政法大學學報;2010年03期

3 金可可;胡堅明;;不完全行為能力人侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成之檢討[J];法學研究;2012年05期

4 楊立新;;教唆人、幫助人責任與監(jiān)護人責任[J];法學論壇;2012年03期

5 薛軍;;《侵權(quán)責任法》對監(jiān)護人責任制度的發(fā)展[J];蘇州大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2011年06期

6 朱廣新;;被監(jiān)護人致人損害的侵權(quán)責任配置——《侵權(quán)責任法》第32條的體系解釋[J];蘇州大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2011年06期

7 陳幫鋒;;論監(jiān)護人責任 《侵權(quán)責任法》第32條的破解[J];中外法學;2011年01期

8 郭明瑞;張平華;;關(guān)于監(jiān)護人對未成年人致人損害的賠償責任[J];政法論叢;2009年05期

本文編號：2057626