【摘要】：隨著工業(yè)化進(jìn)程的加快,社會交往的增多,人們越來越關(guān)注安全保障義務(wù),迫切需要法律提供更為全面的保護(hù)�，F(xiàn)行法中,有關(guān)安全保障義務(wù)的規(guī)定尚未完善,阻礙了侵權(quán)法功能的發(fā)揮。司法實(shí)踐中,法官對第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人是否盡到安全保障義務(wù)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、舉證責(zé)任的分配、責(zé)任形態(tài)的確定等問題認(rèn)識不統(tǒng)一,導(dǎo)致裁判尺度不一致。目前,對第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人責(zé)任的理論研究,多局限于未盡安全保障義務(wù)行為與損害結(jié)果之間的因果關(guān)系、補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的性質(zhì)等某一方面的問題,鮮有對第三人介入下未盡安全保障義務(wù)行為的性質(zhì)、該行為與第三人行為之間的關(guān)系、侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件、責(zé)任形態(tài)等問題的系統(tǒng)分析。恰恰是因?yàn)榱⒎ㄒ?guī)定的不完善和理論研究的不深入,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)務(wù)中問題層出不窮。因此,本文將結(jié)合立法和司法實(shí)務(wù)中存在的問題,采用比較研究法、裁判研究法,從第三人介入下未盡安全保障義務(wù)行為的性質(zhì)入手,分析安全保障義務(wù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則和構(gòu)成要件,確定安全保障義務(wù)人的責(zé)任形態(tài)。本文分四個部分:引言:通過分析典型案例,指出司法實(shí)務(wù)中,存在著對第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人是否盡到安全保障義務(wù)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、舉證責(zé)任的分配、責(zé)任形態(tài)的確定等內(nèi)容,裁判尺度不統(tǒng)一的問題。指出現(xiàn)行法規(guī)定的不完善和理論研究的不深入,使以上問題不能得到解決。因此,本文采用比較研究法和裁判研究法,對第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人的責(zé)任進(jìn)行探究。第一章:確定第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人行為的性質(zhì)。首先對安全保障義務(wù)人責(zé)任中出現(xiàn)的“第三人”概念進(jìn)行界定;在明確概念的基礎(chǔ)上,依第三人行為作用和主觀狀態(tài)的不同,對第三人和安全保障義務(wù)人行為結(jié)合的類型進(jìn)行劃分;結(jié)合不同的類型,分析第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人行為的性質(zhì)。第二章:研究第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則。從歸責(zé)的本質(zhì)、證明的對象、作用的結(jié)果三個方面,對過錯責(zé)任和過錯推定進(jìn)行比較,確定第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則;類比《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中教育機(jī)構(gòu)安全保障義務(wù)里有關(guān)舉證責(zé)任的規(guī)定,提出完善立法的建議;結(jié)合行為的不同類型,對司法實(shí)務(wù)中分歧較大的公平責(zé)任能否適用問題進(jìn)行探討。第三章:分析第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件。對比侵權(quán)責(zé)任三要件說和四要件說,結(jié)合安全保障義務(wù)的特點(diǎn),確定第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件;對各具體構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行分析,指出第三人介入下確定安全保障義務(wù)范圍的原則和標(biāo)準(zhǔn),明確安全保障義務(wù)人的責(zé)任范圍,提出判斷違反安全保障義務(wù)行為與損害結(jié)果之間因果關(guān)系的方法。第四章:確定第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人的責(zé)任形態(tài)。從安全保障義務(wù)人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)入手,通過對現(xiàn)行法中的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任、國內(nèi)外有關(guān)安全保障義務(wù)人責(zé)任形態(tài)的學(xué)說和做法進(jìn)行比較,確定第三人介入下安全保障義務(wù)人的責(zé)任形態(tài),提出在第三人、安全保障義務(wù)人、受害人之間分配具體責(zé)任的方法。
[Abstract]:With the acceleration of the industrialization process and the increase of social interaction, people pay more and more attention to the security guarantee obligations, and there is an urgent need to provide more comprehensive protection for the law. In the current law, the provisions on the obligation of security guarantee have not been improved, and the function of tort law is hindered. In the judicial practice, the judge's judgment criterion, the allocation of the burden of proof, the determination of the form of responsibility and so on are not uniform, which leads to inconsistent judgment scale. At present, the theoretical study of the responsibility of the obligor under the intervention of the third party is limited to the problem of the causal relationship between the behavior of safety guarantee obligation and the result of damage, the nature of supplementary responsibility and so on. A systematic analysis of the relationship between the behavior and the third party's behavior, the constitutive requirements of the tort liability, the form of responsibility, etc. is seldom done under the intervention of the third party. It is precisely because of the imperfection of legislative provisions and the indepth of theoretical research, which leads to endless problems in judicial practice. Therefore, in the light of the problems existing in legislation and judicial practice, this paper starts with the nature of the behavior of security guarantee obligation under the intervention of the third party, analyzes the principle of imputation and the constitutive requirements of the duty of tort of the obligor. Determine the form of responsibility of the security guarantee obligors. This article is divided into four parts: Introduction: By analyzing the typical cases, it is pointed out that in the judicial practice, there is the judgment standard, the allocation of the burden of proof and the determination of the form of responsibility in the intervention of the third party. There's a problem with the referee's scale. It is pointed out that the imperfection of the current law and the indepth of theoretical research can not solve the above problems. Therefore, using the comparative research method and the referee research method, this paper probes into the responsibility of the security security obligor under the intervention of the third party. Chapter one: To determine the nature of the behavior of the obligor under the intervention of the third party. First of all, it appears in the responsibility of the security guarantee obligors" third person "The concept is defined; on the basis of the clear concept, the type of the act of the third person and the security guarantee obligor is divided according to the different actions of the third person and the subjective state, and the nature of the behavior of the security guarantee obligor under the intervention of the third party is analyzed according to the different types. Chapter two: To study the principle of imputation of tort liability of the obligor under the intervention of the third party. On the basis of the nature of imputation, the object and the result of action, the author compares the fault liability and the presumption of fault, and determines the principle of imputation of tort liability of the third party under the intervention of the third party. Analogy The provisions of the burden of proof in the security guarantee obligation of educational institutions in China, put forward suggestions to perfect the legislation; and explore the applicability of the fairness responsibility in judicial practice with different types of behavior. The third chapter is to analyze the constituent elements of tort liability of the obligor under the intervention of the third party. Comparing the three elements of tort liability and four elements, combining the characteristics of security guarantee obligation, the article determines the constituent elements of tort liability of the third party under the intervention of the third party, and analyzes the specific constitutive requirements. The author points out the principle and standard of determining the scope of security guarantee obligation under the intervention of the third party, makes clear the scope of responsibility of the security guarantee obligor, and puts forward a method to judge the causal relationship between the behavior of breach of security guarantee obligation and the result of damage. Chapter 4: To determine the form of responsibility of the obligor under the intervention of the third party. On the basis of the theory basis of the responsibility of the security guarantee obligors, the author compares the supplementary responsibility in the current law, the theory and practice of the responsibility pattern of the security guarantee obligors at home and abroad, determines the liability form of the security guarantee obligors under the intervention of the third party, and puts forward that in the third party, A method of assigning specific responsibilities between a security guarantee obligor and a victim.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅漸;茅曉暉;;經(jīng)營者違反安全保障義務(wù)的歸責(zé)問題[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年05期

2 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(xué)家;2006年06期

3 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

4 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

5 苗延波;;經(jīng)營者對服務(wù)場所承擔(dān)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(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

6 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

7 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

8 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(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

9 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(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

10 竇蔚;;服務(wù)場所經(jīng)營者安全保障義務(wù)與責(zé)任[J];青海社會科學(xué);2007年03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(xué)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(dāng)代法學(xué)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(xué)術(shù)叢書——混合的法律文化[C];2007年

4 石紀(jì)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(cái)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(zé)任認(rèn)定——從偽卡盜刷案件切入[A];金融法學(xué)家（第五輯）[C];2013年

6 楊垠紅;;論安全保障義務(wù)的學(xué)理基礎(chǔ)[A];全國外國法制史研究會學(xué)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(zé)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(shí)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(zé)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(xué)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(xué)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(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 楊立新;看醫(yī)院的安全保障義務(wù)[N];健康報(bào);2005年

2 許根華 胡雪梅;從本案看經(jīng)營者對消費(fèi)者的安全保障義務(wù)[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

3 何立超;從一起案件談安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

4 羽鈞　雪飛;從溺水案看經(jīng)營者對消費(fèi)者的安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2007年

5 林振通;從本案看經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

6 榮成;安全保障義務(wù)不可忽視[N];中國電力報(bào);2008年

7 許綠葉;安全保障義務(wù)是商家法定責(zé)任[N];深圳特區(qū)報(bào);2008年

8 朱從軍;如何界定經(jīng)營者安全保障義務(wù)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

9 王岳;醫(yī)院應(yīng)履行對患者的安全保障義務(wù)[N];中國醫(yī)藥報(bào);2010年

10 姚海放 中國人民大學(xué)民商事法律科學(xué)研究中心;第三人行為介入中的安全保障義務(wù)責(zé)任承擔(dān)[N];中國社會科學(xué)報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)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(xué);2006年

，

本文編號：2279697

suoshi