發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-12-27 14:18

【摘要】：最高人民法院《關(guān)于審理人身?yè)p害賠償案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》成功借鑒了德國(guó)法上的交易往來(lái)安全義務(wù)制度,并依此創(chuàng)設(shè)了中國(guó)法上的安全保障義務(wù)。2009年頒布的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第三十七條,首次以立法形式明確規(guī)定了違反安全保障義務(wù)的侵權(quán)責(zé)任,填補(bǔ)了我國(guó)關(guān)于安全保障義務(wù)規(guī)定在法律層面上的空白,為受害人主張權(quán)利提供了請(qǐng)求權(quán)規(guī)范基礎(chǔ)。但由于侵權(quán)責(zé)任法、相關(guān)司法解釋的規(guī)定過(guò)于原則、抽象以及最高法院指導(dǎo)性案例的缺失,在很大程度上造成了法官在裁決類似案件過(guò)程中適用法律的困惑與疑慮。據(jù)不完全統(tǒng)計(jì),在筆者搜索的近150起有關(guān)違反經(jīng)營(yíng)者安全保障義務(wù)的案件中,僅僅只有不到三成的案件經(jīng)營(yíng)者是完全不承擔(dān)責(zé)任的。而在近七成的案件中經(jīng)營(yíng)者都無(wú)一例外的要承擔(dān)違反安全保障義務(wù)的責(zé)任,更有甚者,在一些裁判文書中雖然法院認(rèn)定經(jīng)營(yíng)者已盡到安全保障義務(wù),但仍然依據(jù)經(jīng)營(yíng)者屬于“強(qiáng)勢(shì)一方”而要求其承擔(dān)一部分的責(zé)任。如此一來(lái),在最大限度甚至于超限度的保護(hù)了相對(duì)人利益的同時(shí)對(duì)于經(jīng)營(yíng)者而言極為不公平,經(jīng)營(yíng)者安全保障義務(wù)應(yīng)當(dāng)存在一個(gè)合理限度。本文試圖通過(guò)以危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源類型為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將經(jīng)營(yíng)者安全保障義務(wù)從橫向上區(qū)分為危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源于服務(wù)本身、危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源于經(jīng)營(yíng)場(chǎng)所使用物、危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源于第三人、危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源于相對(duì)人自身以及危險(xiǎn)來(lái)源于不可抗力五種類型,并結(jié)合經(jīng)營(yíng)者對(duì)不同的相對(duì)人類型承擔(dān)不同的安全保障義務(wù),賦予每一種類型的安全保障義務(wù)不同的具體“合理限度”判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并輔之以其他“合理限度”考量因子,以期能夠給司法實(shí)踐處理此類案件提供一些較為有用的參考,解決實(shí)務(wù)中超限度保護(hù)相對(duì)人而致不公正的問(wèn)題,從而能夠真正彰顯該制度的魅力。
[Abstract]:The Supreme people's Court's interpretation of some issues concerning the law applicable to cases of personal injury compensation has successfully drawn lessons from the system of transaction security obligations in German law. Article 37 of the Tort liability Law, promulgated in 2009, for the first time explicitly stipulates the tort liability for breach of the security obligation in the form of legislation. It fills the gap in the legal level of the security obligation in our country, and provides the normative basis for the victims to claim their rights. However, due to the tort liability law, the provisions of the relevant judicial interpretation are too principled, abstract and the lack of the Supreme Court guiding cases, to a large extent, the judge in the adjudication of similar cases in the application of the law confusion and doubt. According to incomplete statistics, in the nearly 150 cases of violation of operator's obligation of safety and security, only less than 30% of the cases are not responsible at all. In nearly 70% of the cases, the operators have to bear the responsibility of violating the obligations of safety and security without exception. What is more, in some adjudicative documents, although the court found that the operators had fulfilled their obligations of safety and security, But still according to the operator belongs to the "strong party" and require it to assume part of the responsibility. In this way, it is unfair to the operator to protect the interests of the relative party to the maximum extent or even beyond the limit, and there should be a reasonable limit to the duty of safety protection of the operator. Based on the type of dangerous source, this paper attempts to divide the safety and security obligations of the operator horizontally into the danger from the service itself, the hazard from the use of the premises, and the danger from the third person. The danger comes from the opposite party itself and the danger from the five types of force majeure, and combines with the operator to undertake different safety and security obligations to different types of relative party. Giving each type of security obligation a different specific "reasonable limit" criterion, supplemented by other "reasonable limit" considerations, in order to provide some useful references for judicial practice in dealing with such cases, To solve the problem of injustice caused by over-protection of relative person in practice, so as to truly show the charm of the system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(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 王文勝;;論合同法和侵權(quán)法在固有利益保護(hù)上的分工與協(xié)作[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2015年04期

2 郭暉;劉會(huì)鳳;;第三人侵權(quán)下經(jīng)營(yíng)者安全保障義務(wù)合理限度問(wèn)題研究[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇;2012年08期

3 賈邦俊;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中安全保障義務(wù)“合理限度”的思考——從比較法角度審視[J];紹興文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué));2010年06期

4 廖煥國(guó);;論安全保障義務(wù)的制度設(shè)計(jì)——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法(草案)》第37條為中心的考察[J];求索;2010年04期

5 錢玉文;;論消費(fèi)者安全保障權(quán)的擴(kuò)張與限制[J];河北法學(xué);2009年08期

6 孫志勇;王長(zhǎng)信;常宇通;;經(jīng)營(yíng)者安全保障義務(wù)的“合理限度范圍”探析[J];河北工程大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年01期

7 高斐;;論經(jīng)營(yíng)者場(chǎng)所安全保障義務(wù)的合理邊界——從“五月花餐廳案”說(shuō)開(kāi)去[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年34期

8 葉i吰，

本文編號(hào)：2393198