【摘要】：所謂雇主追償權(quán),是指在雇傭關(guān)系中,雇員因從事職務(wù)行為而致使他人受到損害,雇主向他人承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任后,對有過錯(cuò)的雇員所享有追償?shù)臋?quán)利。雇主只有替代雇員承擔(dān)責(zé)任后即雇主履行雇主責(zé)任之后才可以向雇員行使追償權(quán)。雇主責(zé)任,又稱“用人者責(zé)任”、“輔助人責(zé)任”、“使用人責(zé)任”等,雇主責(zé)任有廣義和和狹義之分。狹義雇主責(zé)任是指雇員在執(zhí)行職務(wù)的過程中致使第三人的權(quán)益受到侵害,雇主替代雇員向第三人承擔(dān)的賠償責(zé)任。廣義的雇主責(zé)任除狹義的雇主責(zé)任外,還包括雇員在執(zhí)行職務(wù)的過程中自身受到損害時(shí),雇主為雇員的損害承擔(dān)的責(zé)任。本文所討論的雇主追償權(quán)是指在狹義的雇主責(zé)任下,雇主對雇員享有追償?shù)臋?quán)利。出于保護(hù)受害人的合法權(quán)益和照顧弱勢一方雇員的利益,法律上設(shè)置了雇主責(zé)任制度。2003年我國最高人民法院頒布的《關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》(以下簡稱《人身損害賠償司法解釋》)和2010年頒布實(shí)施的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》都有關(guān)于雇主責(zé)任的規(guī)定。但是,這兩個(gè)法律文件關(guān)于雇主追償權(quán)相關(guān)規(guī)定確不一致。《人身損害賠償司法解釋》第9條明確指出雇員執(zhí)行職務(wù)行為致人損害,主觀上存在故意或重大過失的應(yīng)與雇主承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任,雇主向受害人進(jìn)行賠償之后可以向雇員進(jìn)行追償。2010年頒布實(shí)施的效力更高的《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第34條和第35條根據(jù)用人主體不同分別規(guī)定了“用人單位”主體和“個(gè)人用人”主體的雇主責(zé)任,但是對于雇主的追償權(quán)根本沒有提及。立法上的不確定使得我國是否承認(rèn)雇主追償權(quán)以及如何行使有不同理解,當(dāng)事人對法律的適用產(chǎn)生爭議。關(guān)于雇主能夠行使追償權(quán)以及如何行使追償權(quán),法院在實(shí)踐中沒有統(tǒng)一的適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn),主要依靠法官的自由裁量,由于每個(gè)法官不同的背景和價(jià)值觀,很容易出現(xiàn)同案不同判的現(xiàn)象。現(xiàn)在社會雇傭關(guān)系廣泛存在,在我國,有關(guān)職務(wù)侵權(quán)、勞務(wù)派遣、有償幫工、義務(wù)幫工、家庭保姆、小時(shí)工等侵權(quán)時(shí)有發(fā)生,對雇傭雙方責(zé)任進(jìn)行合理分配十分有必要。因此,雇主追償權(quán)問題值得關(guān)注。本文通過對雇主追償權(quán)我國立法現(xiàn)狀和國外相關(guān)制度進(jìn)行比較分析,肯定了雇主在一定條件可以對雇員行使追償權(quán)。并通過對雇主追償權(quán)存在的基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行論證,分析其存在的正當(dāng)性。從比較法來看,各國在承認(rèn)雇主追償權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上對雇主行使追償權(quán)的條件和范圍都進(jìn)行了嚴(yán)格限制。本文將通過結(jié)合具體案例,對雇主行使追償權(quán)需要的前提條件和追償范圍進(jìn)行分析論證,以期對雇主行使追償權(quán)進(jìn)行限制和規(guī)范。對雇主追償權(quán)問題的探討和研究,可以彌補(bǔ)立法缺陷,對司法實(shí)踐有一定的指導(dǎo)意義。完善的雇主追償制度有利于保護(hù)受害人的權(quán)益,規(guī)范雇員的行為,平衡雇主和雇員之間的權(quán)利義務(wù)。
[Abstract]:The so-called employer's right of recourse refers to the employee's right to recover compensation to the employee who is at fault after he undertakes the compensation liability to others because of the injury caused by the employee's position in the employment relationship. The employer may exercise the right of recovery from the employee only after he has assumed the responsibility of replacing the employee, that is, after the employer has fulfilled the employer's responsibility. Employer liability, also called "employer responsibility", "subsidiary responsibility", "user responsibility", etc., is divided into broad sense and narrow sense. The narrow sense of employer's liability refers to the third party's rights and interests being infringed upon by the employee in the process of performing his duties, and the employer replacing the employee's liability for compensation to the third party. The broad sense of employer's liability, apart from the narrow sense of employer's liability, also includes the employer's liability for the employee's damage when the employee suffers damage in the course of performing his duties. The employer's right of recourse in this paper refers to the right of the employer to recover the employee under the narrow sense of employer's responsibility. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victim and to take care of the interests of the employee of the vulnerable party, In 2003, the Supreme people's Court of our country promulgated the interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law in handling cases of personal injury compensation (hereinafter referred to as "Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation") and The Tort liability Act, enacted in 2010, contains provisions on employer liability. However, the provisions of these two legal documents concerning the employer's right of recourse are not consistent. Article 9 of the Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation clearly states that an employee's act in the performance of his duties causes harm to a person. If there is intentional or gross negligence subjectively, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable, An employer may recover compensation from an employee after compensation to the victim. Articles 34 and 35 of the more effective Tort liability Act enacted and implemented in 2010 provide for the "employer" subject and the employer subject, respectively, according to the employer's main body. The employer's responsibility of the main body of "personal employment", But there is no mention of the employer's right of recourse. Due to the uncertainty of legislation, there are different understandings on whether the employer's right of recourse is recognized and how to exercise it, and the parties dispute the application of the law. With regard to the ability of the employer to exercise the right of recourse and how to exercise the right of recourse, the courts have no uniform standards of application in practice and rely mainly on the discretion of the judge, owing to the different backgrounds and values of each judge, It is easy to see different sentences in the same case. Nowadays, the social employment relations exist widely in our country. In our country, the infringement of duty infringement, labor dispatch, paid help, volunteer help, family nanny, hourly worker and so on occur from time to time, so it is necessary to reasonably distribute the responsibilities of both sides of employment. Therefore, the issue of the employer's right of recourse is worthy of attention. Based on the comparative analysis of the current legislation situation of the employer's right of recourse in our country and the relevant systems abroad, this paper confirms that the employer can exercise the right of recovery against the employee under certain conditions. The legitimacy of the existence of the employer's right of recovery is analyzed through the demonstration of the basis of the existence of the employer's right of recourse. From the perspective of comparative law, on the basis of the recognition of the employer's right of recourse, countries have strictly restricted the conditions and scope of the employer's exercise of the right of recourse. In this paper, the author analyzes and demonstrates the prerequisite and scope of the employer's right of recourse by combining with a specific case, in order to restrict and standardize the exercise of the right of recovery by the employer. The discussion and research on the employer's right of recourse can make up for the defects of legislation and have certain guiding significance to the judicial practice. The perfect employer recovery system is helpful to protect the rights and interests of the victim, regulate the employee's behavior and balance the rights and obligations between the employer and the employee.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：清華大學(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)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 謝祥清;對行政追償幾個(gè)問題的思考[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2002年03期

2 ;擅自放棄追償權(quán)不能獲賠[J];中國農(nóng)村小康科技;2004年02期

3 ;共同保證人如何行使預(yù)先追償權(quán)?[J];中國農(nóng)村科技;2007年01期

4 ;無意售假冒稻種可否行使追償權(quán)?[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(上半月);2007年05期

5 趙曉光;;論對共同擔(dān)保人之間追償權(quán)的四大制約[J];行政與法;2009年11期

6 王宗成;;探析掛靠關(guān)系中追償權(quán)行使之法律依據(jù)[J];現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)信息;2010年03期

7 展曉文;;雇主追償權(quán)相關(guān)法律問題探討[J];今日中國論壇;2013年15期

8 黃江;擅自放棄追償權(quán)不能獲賠[J];汽車與安全;2003年09期

9 劉勁鋼,蘇彥來;行政追償程序研究[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年01期

10 董奇唯;刑事追償制度初探[J];上海市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年03期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 尚素玉;;中國輪胎美國爆 傷人如何理賠[A];全國律協(xié)經(jīng)濟(jì)專業(yè)委員會2010論壇（成都）論文集[C];2010年

2 殷之杰;周吉高;鞠恒;;建設(shè)單位對建設(shè)工程安全事故損害相鄰建筑物特殊侵權(quán)的無過錯(cuò)民事責(zé)任及追償權(quán)[A];中國民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2001年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 何勇;擔(dān)保上當(dāng)別忘行使追償權(quán)[N];東莞日報(bào);2013年

2 李國忠;雇主追償權(quán)的主體范圍和追償原則[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

3 陳玉蘭邋王玉池;騙取債權(quán)追償權(quán) 討回欠款并私吞[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

4 馬晶 蔣春富;支持起訴破解追償難[N];檢察日報(bào);2013年

5 成林;雇主追償權(quán)的數(shù)額范圍[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

6 王蒙 房東升;主體不明確手段單一 道路救助基金追償率低[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

7 李明;道交事故中連帶責(zé)任方追償權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2014年

8 通訊員 陳明春;晉寧縣工商局兩干部放棄民事追償權(quán)[N];云南日報(bào);2009年

9 梅靜 張彬 丁朝陽;道路救助基金 墊付830萬僅追償36萬[N];檢察日報(bào);2012年

10 宋曉波;“接受勞務(wù)一方”如何行使追償權(quán)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 徐延涌;論混合共同擔(dān)保人的權(quán)益保護(hù)[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

2 李曉梅;交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)保險(xiǎn)人的追償權(quán)研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2015年

3 玉肖停;我國道路交通事故社會救助基金法律制度研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2015年

4 何毅;論混合共同擔(dān)保中的追償權(quán)問題[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

5 李夢龍;混合共同擔(dān)保中第三人追償問題之研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 孫玉;機(jī)動車強(qiáng)制責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中追償權(quán)問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

7 沈軍煒;混合共同擔(dān)保中擔(dān)保人的追償問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

8 湯中博;混合共同擔(dān)保人追償機(jī)制研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

9 郭華飛;用人單位對勞動者追償權(quán)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

10 武盼見;混合共同擔(dān)保的分?jǐn)偱c追償[D];清華大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：2427430