【摘要】：借助于北大法寶案例數(shù)據(jù)庫通過調(diào)查統(tǒng)計分析,可以得知各地法院在裁判共同飲酒致害案件時存在以下問題:共同飲酒致害案件存在同案不同判情況,在審理共同飲酒致害案件時,法院適用的歸責(zé)原則不一致,有的法院既適用過錯責(zé)任原則,又適用公平責(zé)任原則,有的法院只適用過錯責(zé)任原則。本文研究的致害共飲行為針對的是共同的人數(shù)應(yīng)在二人以上(包括本數(shù)在內(nèi)),上不封頂,自斟自飲不是文章的研究范圍;當(dāng)事人僅限定在達(dá)成一致意思表示約定共同飲酒的范圍內(nèi),包括大型聚會、婚宴的來賓參加者,不包括服務(wù)人員,助興演出人員等輔助性人員;共同飲酒致害案件的時間起點是共飲人到達(dá)約定地點,時間終點應(yīng)以共飲人的身體狀況作為考察因素;致害原因是由于酒精的作用下,直接或間接的導(dǎo)致共飲人受到損害。致害共飲行為應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任是因為致害共飲行為的行為性質(zhì)具有雙重性,它既是情誼侵權(quán)行為又是事實行為。共同飲酒致害案件的歸責(zé)原則只有一個就是過錯責(zé)任原則,公平責(zé)任原則在本類案件中不能濫用,以防法院自由裁量權(quán)的肆意擴(kuò)大化,使用公平責(zé)任原則的條件是認(rèn)定當(dāng)事人應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)責(zé)任的前提下,用來合理的分配當(dāng)事人承擔(dān)的賠償數(shù)額的情況。過錯責(zé)任原則的適用是對共飲人過錯的評價,過錯的認(rèn)定是建立在案件事實基礎(chǔ)上的,但又不完全是對案件事實的評價;評價共飲人是否具有過錯是評價共飲人的致害共飲行為,與損害后果沒有關(guān)系。利用漢德公式通過將預(yù)防成本與預(yù)期事故成本相比較,如果共飲人的預(yù)防成本小于預(yù)期事故發(fā)生的成本,則共飲人具有過失,因為共飲人只要稍加防范就可以避免其他共飲人人身財產(chǎn)損害后果的出現(xiàn)。另外,還要考慮到受害共飲人與侵權(quán)共飲人之間負(fù)擔(dān)最低注意義務(wù)的分配問題,兩者的預(yù)期社會成本更低者負(fù)有最低注意義務(wù),通過比較兩者的預(yù)防成本,可以得知受害共飲人負(fù)有最低注意義務(wù),所以,當(dāng)共飲致害案件發(fā)生時,受害共飲人本身應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)過失責(zé)任,這也是每個人應(yīng)當(dāng)對自己的生命負(fù)責(zé)的體現(xiàn)。共同飲酒致害案件的過錯表現(xiàn)形式以共飲侵權(quán)行為的行為方式為劃分依據(jù),分為其他共飲人通過作為方式導(dǎo)致共飲人發(fā)生損害、其他共飲人通過不作為方式導(dǎo)致共飲人發(fā)生損害等兩種類型。共飲人根據(jù)其在共同飲酒過程中的作用和地位不同,承擔(dān)不同的責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:With the help of the Beijing University Fa Po case Database, through the investigation and statistical analysis, we can know that there are the following problems in the adjudication of joint drinking cases by local courts: there are different judgments in the same case in the joint drinking cases. In the case of joint drinking, the principle of imputation applied by the court is inconsistent. Some courts apply the principle of fault liability as well as the principle of fair liability, and some courts only apply the principle of fault liability. This article studies the behavior of drinking together is that the common number should be more than two (including the number of people), not capped, self-refilling and drinking is not the scope of the article; The parties concerned shall limit themselves to the scope of the agreement on joint drinking, including the participants of large gatherings and wedding banquets, not including service personnel, entertainers and other auxiliary personnel; The starting point of the joint drinking injury case is that the co-drinker arrives at the appointed place, and the end of the time should take the body condition of the co-drinker as the investigation factor, and the harmful reason is that the co-drinker is damaged directly or indirectly because of the effect of alcohol. The nature of the behavior is duality, which is not only the tort of friendship but also the act of fact. There is only one principle of imputation in cases of joint drinking that is the principle of fault liability. The principle of fair liability should not be abused in this kind of cases in order to prevent the arbitrary expansion of the discretion of the court. The condition of using the principle of fair liability is to determine that the party should bear the responsibility, and use it to distribute the compensation amount of the party reasonably. The application of the principle of fault liability is the evaluation of the fault of the co-drinkers, and the fault determination is based on the facts of the case, but it is not entirely the evaluation of the facts of the case. Evaluating whether the co-drinker is at fault is the evaluation of the co-drinker 's harmful co-drinking behavior, which has nothing to do with the damage consequence. By comparing the prevention cost with the expected accident cost, if the prevention cost of the co-drinker is less than the expected accident cost, then the co-drinker is negligent. Because co-drinkers can avoid the consequences of personal and property damage as long as a little precaution. Also taking into account the distribution of the burden of the minimum duty of care between the injured co-drinker and the tort co-drinker, who have a minimum duty of care to whom the expected social cost is lower, by comparing the cost of prevention between the two, It can be known that the injured co-drinkers have the lowest duty of care. Therefore, when the co-drinking cases occur, the injured co-drinkers themselves should bear the responsibility for negligence, which is also the embodiment that everyone should be responsible for their own life. The manifestation of fault in joint drinking cases is based on the behavior of co-drinking infringement, which is divided into other co-drinkers who cause damage to co-drinkers by means of co-drinking. Other co-drinkers cause damage to co-drinkers by omission. The co-drinkers bear different responsibilities according to their roles and positions in the process of joint drinking.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 王毓瑩,向國慧;論公平責(zé)任原則的限制適用 公平責(zé)任原則的公平危機(jī)及其防范[J];法律適用;2004年09期

2 朱明陽;;對公平責(zé)任原則的悖論思考[J];中共成都市委黨校學(xué)報;2007年02期

3 黃迪;;淺論公平責(zé)任原則[J];法制與社會;2007年03期

4 朱杰;;論公平責(zé)任原則的存與廢[J];政府法制;2008年18期

5 范振遠(yuǎn);謝曉琴;;建析公平責(zé)任原則之爭[J];法制與社會;2009年03期

6 崔建遠(yuǎn);袁久強(qiáng);;關(guān)于“公平責(zé)任原則”的考察與評論[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);1990年03期

7 王新;公平責(zé)任原則的適用探析[J];唐山師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年03期

8 王俊波,陳運(yùn)生;論侵權(quán)行為法的公平責(zé)任原則[J];松遼學(xué)刊(人文社會科學(xué)版);2002年03期

9 邱曼麗;論公平責(zé)任原則的適用空間[J];北京交通管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年04期

10 譚曉玉;為什么學(xué)校抱怨公平責(zé)任原則“不公平”?——談公平責(zé)任原則在學(xué)校傷害事故處理中的適用條件[J];中小學(xué)管理;2003年10期

中國重要會議論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前1條

1 周天源;雷華;;論“公平責(zé)任原則”成為侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則的“肯定性”[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二０一一年第三輯）[C];2011年

中國重要報紙全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 本報記者 趙衡;適用公平責(zé)任原則得符合條件[N];檢察日報;2013年

2 馬雷軍;公平責(zé)任原則在學(xué)生傷害事故中的適用[N];中國教師報;2003年

3 劉言浩;人身損害賠償與公平責(zé)任原則的適用[N];人民法院報;2001年

4 劉 蕊 鄭亞芹;如何正確適用公平責(zé)任原則[N];人民法院報;2002年

5 周建華　張俊宏;淺議侵權(quán)案件中的 “公平責(zé)任原則”之適用[N];江蘇法制報;2011年

6 蘇家成 余其營 朱玉環(huán);車輪崩出碎石擊傷行人責(zé)任如何分擔(dān)[N];人民法院報;2003年

7 李海雙;相同案件 為何兩種判法[N];中國教師報;2004年

8 范紅萍;從“意外損壞”看公平責(zé)任原則[N];中國質(zhì)量報;2004年

9 ;此案適用公平責(zé)任原則[N];河北日報;2003年

10 鄭和興　楊建民;一起死亡事故的公平判決[N];閩北日報;2005年

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 張鈺;公平責(zé)任原則的反思與檢討[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 陶麗莉;公平責(zé)任原則的審判實踐適用研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2011年

3 汪洋;公平責(zé)任原則在我國侵權(quán)案中的適用[D];華中科技大學(xué);2013年

4 高落宇;論公平責(zé)任原則[D];河北大學(xué);2014年

5 杜以標(biāo);公平責(zé)任原則研究[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

6 羅志豐;公平責(zé)任原則研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

7 羅東波;論公平責(zé)任原則[D];湘潭大學(xué);2009年

8 楊飛飛;論公平責(zé)任原則的適用條件[D];蘭州大學(xué);2011年

9 白榮君;公平責(zé)任原則研究[D];西北大學(xué);2007年

10 黃震宇;論公平責(zé)任原則在我國醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛中的合理適用[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2370947