【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展以及人們生活消費(fèi)水平的日益提高,雇傭關(guān)系屢見不鮮,而由此引發(fā)的雇主責(zé)任糾紛隨之而來。在理論上,我國對(duì)于雇員致第三人損害的雇主責(zé)任的研究主要是歸責(zé)原則的研究,包括過錯(cuò)推定責(zé)任與無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任,雖然各執(zhí)己見,但大多數(shù)學(xué)者支持采用無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則。在立法上,對(duì)于規(guī)范雇傭關(guān)系的法律很長一段時(shí)間處于空缺狀態(tài),直到《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》的出臺(tái),雇傭關(guān)系這一概念才出現(xiàn)在我國法律條文中,但該法第9條規(guī)定與后來頒布的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第34、35條的規(guī)定,概念和具體內(nèi)容均發(fā)生了變化,導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中對(duì)于二者的效力關(guān)系以及如何適用存在很大爭議。由于雇傭合同沒有納入《合同法》,造成沒有雇傭合同的相關(guān)規(guī)則作為裁判的依據(jù),裁判結(jié)果主觀隨意性大導(dǎo)致當(dāng)事人紛紛上訴,浪費(fèi)了司法資源。概括來說雇員致第三人損害的雇主責(zé)任主要存在雇傭關(guān)系無明確的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、從事雇傭活動(dòng)的范圍不明確、沒有規(guī)定雇主追償權(quán)三個(gè)主要問題。針對(duì)存在的問題,本文立足于我國的立法現(xiàn)狀同時(shí)借鑒其他國家關(guān)于雇主責(zé)任的相關(guān)立法,在對(duì)雇主責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則等理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行研究后,為雇傭關(guān)系立法提出可行性的建議,希望能以民法典編纂為契機(jī),完善雇主責(zé)任制度。首先,我國有必要將雇傭合同有名化,這一立法構(gòu)想既有意思自治與民事行為理論做為理論基礎(chǔ),也有大量雇傭關(guān)系亟待法律規(guī)范的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)。在立法模式的選擇上,我國可以借鑒德國關(guān)于雇傭合同規(guī)則的立法模式,在《合同法》中規(guī)定雇傭合同的一般規(guī)則,將勞動(dòng)合同作為特殊規(guī)則加以規(guī)定。其次,在歸責(zé)原則的選擇上,我國今后關(guān)于雇主責(zé)任的立法應(yīng)當(dāng)采用無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則,不僅可以強(qiáng)化對(duì)受害人的保護(hù),也符合我國社會(huì)層面與經(jīng)濟(jì)層面的基本國情。第三,對(duì)于雇傭關(guān)系的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可以先采用雇傭合同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行判斷,如無法判定進(jìn)而采用控制監(jiān)督標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。雇傭關(guān)系與勞動(dòng)關(guān)系最根本區(qū)別在于勞動(dòng)關(guān)系具有更強(qiáng)的人身從屬性,但并不是所有的雇傭關(guān)系都不具有從屬性,二者還需要從主體、報(bào)酬給付、價(jià)值追求與規(guī)范內(nèi)容等方面進(jìn)行區(qū)分。雇傭關(guān)系與承攬關(guān)系最根本區(qū)別在于給付內(nèi)容一個(gè)為勞務(wù)另一個(gè)為勞動(dòng)成果,此外在控制關(guān)系與報(bào)酬給付標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面有所區(qū)別。第四,在認(rèn)定雇傭關(guān)系這一前提下,對(duì)于從事雇傭活動(dòng)的范圍確定,可以以雇主意思為出發(fā)點(diǎn),結(jié)合客觀說與內(nèi)在聯(lián)系說綜合把握。最后,在雇主承擔(dān)無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任之后,賦予雇主追償權(quán),根據(jù)雇員對(duì)第三人侵權(quán)行為的過錯(cuò)程度確定追償數(shù)額。同時(shí)發(fā)展雇主責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)制度,分散雇主的責(zé)任風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the improvement of people's living and consumption level, the employment relationship is common, and the dispute of employer's liability is followed. In theory, the study of employer liability for damages caused by employees to the third party is mainly about the principle of liability imputation, including presumption of fault liability and liability without fault, although they hold their own opinions. However, most scholars support the principle of liability imputation without fault. In legislation, the law regulating employment relations has been vacant for a long time until the Supreme people's Court on the trial of personal injury compensation cases applicable to a number of issues of the interpretation of the law, The concept of employment relationship has just appeared in the legal provisions of our country, but the provisions of Article 9 of the Law and the provisions of Article 34- 35 of the Tort liability Law have changed the concept and the concrete contents. In practice, there is a great controversy about the relationship between the effectiveness of the two and how to apply them. Because the employment contract is not included in the contract Law, the relevant rules without the employment contract are taken as the basis of the judgment. The subjective arbitrariness of the judgment result leads the parties to appeal one after another and waste the judicial resources. Generally speaking, there are three main problems in the employer's liability for the damage caused by the employee to the third party: there are no clear criteria for determining the employment relationship, the scope of engaging in employment activities is not clear, and the employer's right of recourse is not stipulated. In view of the existing problems, this paper bases on the current legislative situation of our country and draws lessons from the relevant legislation of other countries on employer liability. After studying the theoretical basis of the principle of liability imputation of employers, this paper puts forward some feasible suggestions for the legislation of employment relations. It is hoped that the system of employer's liability can be perfected at the turning point of compiling the Civil Code. First of all, it is necessary to make the employment contract famous in our country. This legislative conception is based on the theory of autonomy of will and civil behavior, as well as the realistic basis of a large number of employment relations that need to be regulated by law. With regard to the choice of legislative model, our country can draw lessons from the German legislative model on employment contract rules, stipulate the general rules of employment contract in contract Law, and stipulate the labor contract as a special rule. Secondly, in the choice of imputation principle, the principle of no-fault liability should be adopted in the legislation of employer liability in our country in the future, which can not only strengthen the protection of the victim, but also accord with the basic national conditions of the social and economic level of our country. Thirdly, the standard of employment relationship can be judged by the standard of employment contract, such as the standard of control supervision. The most fundamental difference between employment and labor relations is that labor relations have stronger personal attributes, but not all employment relations do not have subordinate attributes, they also need to be paid from the subject, remuneration, Value pursuit and normative content and other aspects of the distinction. The most fundamental difference between the employment relationship and the contract relationship lies in the fact that the content of payment is one of labor service and the other is the result of labor, in addition, there are differences between the control relationship and the standard of payment of remuneration. Fourthly, under the premise of determining the employment relationship, we can take the employer's intention as the starting point and combine the objective theory with the internal relation theory to comprehensively grasp the scope of engaging in employment activities. Finally, after the employer bears the no-fault liability, the employer is given the right of recourse, and the amount of recovery is determined according to the degree of fault of the employee to the third party. At the same time, the development of employer liability insurance system to spread the employer's liability risk.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923;D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李文濤;龍翼飛;;雇主責(zé)任類型化與“雇傭期間”的認(rèn)定規(guī)則[J];中國人力資源開發(fā);2010年01期

2 王國鋒;有關(guān)雇主責(zé)任的幾個(gè)問題[J];政府法制;2001年01期

3 鄭宇;;論雇主責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

4 張靜;;論雇主責(zé)任[J];山西高等學(xué)校社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年07期

5 馬寧;;雇主責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)在我國的價(jià)值定位[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年06期

6 楊建華;;雇主責(zé)任的本質(zhì)與雇主責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年09期

7 張友連;朱晨;;論雇主責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)[J];中國勞動(dòng)關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

8 耿天瑜;;雇主責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件[J];河北能源職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

9 王磊;;淺析雇主責(zé)任中的相關(guān)問題[J];山東審判;2008年04期

10 劉記福;;關(guān)于完善我國雇主責(zé)任制度的思考[J];政治與法律;2008年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 肖增羿 陳 希;雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)如何走出困境[N];證券日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

2 吳紅軍;煤礦雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)發(fā)展步履沉重[N];中國煤炭報(bào);2004年

3 記者 盧懷謙;全面推廣煤礦雇主責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)[N];中國證券報(bào);2004年

4 夏慶軍;戴鳳舉　強(qiáng)制性推廣煤礦雇主責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)[N];金融時(shí)報(bào);2004年

5 本報(bào)記者 吳紅軍;煤礦雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)發(fā)展任重道遠(yuǎn)[N];金融時(shí)報(bào);2004年

6 中央財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)保險(xiǎn)系 陳巖;雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)任重道遠(yuǎn)[N];上海金融報(bào);2004年

7 本報(bào)記者　 謝柳;雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)：非強(qiáng)制難施行[N];中國保險(xiǎn)報(bào);2006年

8 謝柳;雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)：非強(qiáng)制難施行[N];經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

9 本報(bào)記者 高和平;用工荒催緊雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)[N];華夏時(shí)報(bào);2011年

10 本報(bào)記者 劉微;招工難催熱雇主責(zé)任險(xiǎn)[N];消費(fèi)日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李妍;職場(chǎng)性騷擾雇主責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉強(qiáng);雇主責(zé)任研究[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

2 沙亮亮;雇主責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

3 楊健;論我國雇主責(zé)任的立法完善[D];上海交通大學(xué);2011年

4 楊妍;用人單位侵權(quán)責(zé)任問題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

5 唐曉薇;勞務(wù)派遣中的雇主責(zé)任研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2015年

6 彭巧優(yōu);我國勞務(wù)派遣雇主責(zé)任研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2015年

7 傅立亞;防治職場(chǎng)性騷擾的法律思考[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

8 張德銘;雇主責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

9 胡夢(mèng)迪;我國雇主責(zé)任制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

10 趙靜;雇員侵權(quán)的雇主責(zé)任研究[D];新疆大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2371114