【摘要】：專家對第三人責(zé)任是指專家在執(zhí)業(yè)過程中存在過錯導(dǎo)致與其沒有合同關(guān)系的第三人遭受損害的責(zé)任問題。專家不實陳述對第三人責(zé)任屬于專家責(zé)任的一種類型。本文基于三個方面來探討專家不實陳述對第三人責(zé)任制度,一是作為受害者的第三人是否應(yīng)當(dāng)獲得救濟,即專家承擔(dān)責(zé)任的理論依據(jù)和法律依據(jù)是什么；二是專家對沒有契約關(guān)系的第三人造成的純粹經(jīng)濟損失進行賠償?shù)呢?zé)任模式,即損害救濟的法律模式是什么,是侵權(quán)責(zé)任還是契約責(zé)任；三是對第三人的損失如何賠償?shù)膯栴}。通過比較法研究,英美法系確立了過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任類型,專家不實陳述行為被認(rèn)為是違反了過失侵權(quán)責(zé)任的注意義務(wù)要件,因此要承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任；德國法由于侵權(quán)責(zé)任對純粹經(jīng)濟損失賠償?shù)南拗?主要通過擬制和擴張合同范圍來解決。當(dāng)前,我國法律中對專家責(zé)任的規(guī)定較少,依據(jù)侵權(quán)法對侵權(quán)損害的規(guī)定,可以采用“一般侵權(quán)行為條款”法理適用模式,對于第三人所造成的純粹經(jīng)濟損失納入侵權(quán)法的范疇處理,得出在我國可以通過侵權(quán)法模式來解決專家對第三人責(zé)任問題的結(jié)論。此外,為了防止訴訟泛濫,對純粹經(jīng)濟損失的賠償應(yīng)進行限制,以防止對專家責(zé)任的過重不利于專家作用的發(fā)揮,主要是對相關(guān)第三人的范圍進行限制。
[Abstract]:The liability of the expert to the third party refers to the liability of the third party who has no contractual relationship with the expert in the course of his practice. The expert misstates responsibility to the third party belongs to a type of expert responsibility. Based on three aspects, this paper probes into the system of liability to the third party of the false statement of the expert, one is whether the third person who is the victim should get relief, that is, what is the theoretical basis and the legal basis for the expert to bear the responsibility; The second is the liability mode of the expert to compensate the pure economic loss caused by the third party without contract, that is, what is the legal model of the damage relief, whether the tort liability or the contract liability; the third is the question of how to compensate the third party's loss. Through the comparative study, the Anglo-American law system has established the fault tort liability type, the expert false statement behavior is considered to have violated the negligence tort liability duty of care element, therefore must bear the tort liability; Due to the limitation of tort liability on compensation for pure economic loss, German law is mainly settled by making and expanding the scope of contract. At present, there are few provisions on the liability of experts in our country's law. According to the provisions of tort law on tort damage, we can adopt the legal application mode of "General Tort Clause". The pure economic loss caused by the third party is dealt with in the category of tort law, and the conclusion that experts' liability to the third party can be solved by tort law mode in our country. In addition, in order to prevent the overflowing of litigation, the compensation for pure economic loss should be restricted to prevent the excessive liability of experts against the role of experts, mainly to limit the scope of the third party concerned.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：云南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D913

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 唐先鋒,王洪宇;論我國專家民事責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則[J];通化師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年01期

2 唐先鋒;論專家民事責(zé)任中專家過錯的認(rèn)定[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2005年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 金正振;純粹經(jīng)濟損失的比較研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

2 楊婧;侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成之違法性要件研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

3 仲偉珩;專家第三人責(zé)任制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2178852