第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-13 08:52
【摘要】：安全保障義務(wù)最早形成于古羅馬時(shí)代,并通過德國法的一般安全注意義務(wù)發(fā)展過來。最高人民法院2003年頒布的《關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》首次規(guī)定了安全保障義務(wù)人的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任。2010年實(shí)施的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》總結(jié)以往的立法及司法實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn),首次將安全保障義務(wù)制定入法,并且明確規(guī)定安全保障義務(wù)人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的方式為“相應(yīng)的”補(bǔ)充責(zé)任。本文想要解決的關(guān)鍵問題是如何完善我國第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的相關(guān)法律制度,以期為安全保障義務(wù)人構(gòu)建一個(gè)全方位的保護(hù)體系。所以本文擬以第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的基本理論、立法及司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀及存在的問題、域外經(jīng)驗(yàn)借鑒以及完善相關(guān)立法建議為總體思路。雖然《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》充分肯定和吸收了《人身損害賠償司法解釋》的規(guī)定精神,但是法律條文中所體現(xiàn)的內(nèi)容簡單粗陋,對補(bǔ)充責(zé)任制度的概念、適用情形、具體的操作并沒有進(jìn)行細(xì)致的規(guī)定,理論界對此種制度相關(guān)內(nèi)容未達(dá)成統(tǒng)一共識(shí),以至于司法實(shí)踐操作性較差。如何解決立法以及司法實(shí)踐中存在的問題,本文首先通過對第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的基本理論進(jìn)行概述,著重分析其構(gòu)成要件。其次主要通過現(xiàn)有的法律規(guī)定指出我國第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的立法、司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀以及存在的安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的適用范圍過窄、安全保障義務(wù)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)定不明確、“相應(yīng)的”補(bǔ)充責(zé)任含義模糊以及安全保障義務(wù)人追償權(quán)制度引起的爭議等問題。最后,本文通過借鑒域外第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人責(zé)任立法的經(jīng)驗(yàn),結(jié)合我國司法實(shí)踐,在完善我國第三人介入情形下安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任立法的建議方面,提出了要適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大安全保障義務(wù)人補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的適用范圍、從法定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和理性人標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面明確違反安全保障義務(wù)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、明確安全保障義務(wù)人享有追償權(quán)以及追償權(quán)的行使方式等立法建議,從解釋論入手解決“相應(yīng)的”補(bǔ)充責(zé)任中相關(guān)爭議問題,以期更好的完善相關(guān)法律制度。
[Abstract]:The duty of security was first formed in ancient Rome and developed through the general duty of safety care in German law. In 2003, the Supreme people's Court promulgated the interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law in the trial of personal injury compensation cases, which for the first time stipulated the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The Tort liability Law implemented in 2010 summarized the past. In legislative and judicial practice, For the first time, the obligation of safety and security is enacted into law, and it is clearly stipulated that the way in which the security obligor bears the responsibility is "corresponding" supplementary responsibility. The key problem that this article wants to solve is how to perfect the relevant legal system of the supplementary liability of the safety guarantee obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention in our country, in order to construct a comprehensive protection system for the safety guarantee obligor. Therefore, this paper intends to take the basic theory, the current situation of legislation and judicial practice and the existing problems, the foreign experience and the relevant legislative suggestions as the overall thinking of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention. Although the Tort liability Law fully affirms and absorbs the stipulated spirit of the Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation, the content embodied in the provisions of the law is simple and crude, which is applicable to the concept and application of the supplementary liability system. The concrete operation has not carried on the detailed stipulation, the theory circle has not reached the unified consensus to this kind of system related content, and the judicial practice operation is poor. How to solve the problems in legislation and judicial practice, this paper firstly summarizes the basic theory of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, and emphatically analyzes its constitutive requirements. Secondly, it points out the legislation of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, the current situation of judicial practice and the narrow scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The judgment standard of the security obligation is not clear, the meaning of "corresponding" supplementary responsibility is vague, and the dispute caused by the system of the right of recourse for the security obligor is also discussed. Finally, this paper, by learning from the experience of the legislation on the liability of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party outside the country, and combining the judicial practice of our country, proposes to perfect the supplementary liability legislation of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party in our country. It is proposed that the scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor should be expanded appropriately, and the judgment standard of violating the obligation of safety and security should be clearly defined from the aspects of the legal standard and the standard of the rational person. In order to perfect the relevant legal system, it is clear that the security obligor has the right of recourse and the way of exercising the right of recourse, so as to solve the relevant disputes in the "corresponding" supplementary liability from the explanation theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923
本文編號(hào)：2328613
[Abstract]:The duty of security was first formed in ancient Rome and developed through the general duty of safety care in German law. In 2003, the Supreme people's Court promulgated the interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law in the trial of personal injury compensation cases, which for the first time stipulated the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The Tort liability Law implemented in 2010 summarized the past. In legislative and judicial practice, For the first time, the obligation of safety and security is enacted into law, and it is clearly stipulated that the way in which the security obligor bears the responsibility is "corresponding" supplementary responsibility. The key problem that this article wants to solve is how to perfect the relevant legal system of the supplementary liability of the safety guarantee obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention in our country, in order to construct a comprehensive protection system for the safety guarantee obligor. Therefore, this paper intends to take the basic theory, the current situation of legislation and judicial practice and the existing problems, the foreign experience and the relevant legislative suggestions as the overall thinking of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention. Although the Tort liability Law fully affirms and absorbs the stipulated spirit of the Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation, the content embodied in the provisions of the law is simple and crude, which is applicable to the concept and application of the supplementary liability system. The concrete operation has not carried on the detailed stipulation, the theory circle has not reached the unified consensus to this kind of system related content, and the judicial practice operation is poor. How to solve the problems in legislation and judicial practice, this paper firstly summarizes the basic theory of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, and emphatically analyzes its constitutive requirements. Secondly, it points out the legislation of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, the current situation of judicial practice and the narrow scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The judgment standard of the security obligation is not clear, the meaning of "corresponding" supplementary responsibility is vague, and the dispute caused by the system of the right of recourse for the security obligor is also discussed. Finally, this paper, by learning from the experience of the legislation on the liability of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party outside the country, and combining the judicial practice of our country, proposes to perfect the supplementary liability legislation of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party in our country. It is proposed that the scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor should be expanded appropriately, and the judgment standard of violating the obligation of safety and security should be clearly defined from the aspects of the legal standard and the standard of the rational person. In order to perfect the relevant legal system, it is clear that the security obligor has the right of recourse and the way of exercising the right of recourse, so as to solve the relevant disputes in the "corresponding" supplementary liability from the explanation theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 陳彥晶;;第三人侵權(quán)時(shí)安全保障義務(wù)的功能反思[J];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年05期
2 李晗;;大數(shù)據(jù)時(shí)代網(wǎng)上銀行的安全保障義務(wù)研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2016年04期
3 高慶艷;;論安全保障義務(wù)的有限擴(kuò)張[J];中山大學(xué)研究生學(xué)刊(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年04期
4 邱波;;臨時(shí)工作人員遭受人身損害之責(zé)任認(rèn)定——以侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的安全保障義務(wù)為視角[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(法治論叢);2015年04期
5 李中原;;論違反安全保障義務(wù)的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任制度[J];中外法學(xué);2014年03期
6 孫維飛;;論安全保障義務(wù)人相應(yīng)的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第12條和第37條第2款的關(guān)系為中心[J];東方法學(xué);2014年03期
7 朱晶晶;;安全保障義務(wù)責(zé)任的斷裂與縫合——第三人介入情形的責(zé)任類型分析[J];北方法學(xué);2014年01期
8 邵省;;論高校餐廳等商業(yè)經(jīng)營者的安全保障義務(wù)[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年10期
9 楊立新;;中國侵權(quán)行為形態(tài)與侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)法律適用指引——中國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法重述之侵權(quán)行為形態(tài)與侵權(quán)責(zé)任形態(tài)[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期
10 楊會(huì);;論安全保障義務(wù)人承擔(dān)補(bǔ)充責(zé)任的原因[J];河北法學(xué);2013年07期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 鄒娜;論提供服務(wù)者的安全保障義務(wù)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年
，本文編號(hào)：2328613
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2328613.html
最近更新
教材專著
