“小鋒訴小田、梁平縣大觀鎮(zhèn)中心小學(xué)生命權(quán)、健康權(quán)、身體權(quán)糾紛”案例分析
發(fā)布時間：2019-05-17 16:42
【摘要】：未成年人是祖國的未來,民族的希望,保護其健康成長是全社會共同的責(zé)任。但一起起校園侵權(quán)案件的頻繁發(fā)生卻深深地刺痛了學(xué)生、家長和老師的心,引發(fā)了全社會人民的關(guān)注。本文以一起未成年學(xué)生校園侵權(quán)案件為切入點,該案發(fā)生在2011年,地點是重慶市梁平縣貧困山區(qū)的鄉(xiāng)村學(xué)校,涉及的雙方都是留守兒童,第三方是學(xué)校,造成的損害事實是一名孩子左眼終生殘疾,最后因為經(jīng)濟賠償問題無法達成一致而訴至法院。包括學(xué)校在內(nèi),涉案者均是弱勢群體,法官劃分責(zé)任異常艱難,不僅要安撫人身權(quán)受損人,還要考慮其他責(zé)任人經(jīng)濟上是否能夠承受,更要考慮案結(jié)之后當(dāng)事人還會在同一所學(xué)校,同一班級相處等“法律之外的問題”。本文是一篇未成年學(xué)生校園侵權(quán)案的案例分析,針對案件提出的主要爭議焦點有八點,分別涉及到了侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的“招惹規(guī)則”、“過錯認定”、“因果關(guān)系”、“學(xué)校與學(xué)生的法律關(guān)系”、“教師與學(xué)生的法律關(guān)系”、“監(jiān)護人客觀不能履行監(jiān)護義務(wù)的過錯”以及“各侵權(quán)責(zé)任人的責(zé)任承擔(dān)”等八個方面。未成年學(xué)生校園傷害事故發(fā)生后,必須妥善進行處理,才能確保校園和家庭的和諧穩(wěn)定。本文從侵權(quán)法角度,通過對未成年學(xué)生校園侵權(quán)案件的責(zé)任構(gòu)成、責(zé)任承擔(dān)及減責(zé)事由三個方面進行分析,期能夠在庭審角度盡最大可能妥善處理、化解矛盾、降低損失,從而確保家庭、校園、社會的和諧,保護少年兒童健康成長。全文共分為四個部分,第一部分通過對小鋒訴小田、大觀鎮(zhèn)中心小學(xué)生命權(quán)、健康權(quán)、身體權(quán)糾紛的案例介紹,對本案裁判理由與裁判結(jié)果進行了評述并從案例中歸納出本案存在的爭議焦點問題;第二部分對爭議焦點問題進行梳理分析并結(jié)合未成年學(xué)生校園侵權(quán)案件的責(zé)任構(gòu)成、責(zé)任承擔(dān)及減責(zé)事由這三個方面對八個爭議焦點進行了全面分析,提出本案中筆者認為法院判決存在的幾個缺陷問題;第三部分是綜合前面的分析得出本案的結(jié)論;第四部分就審理未成年學(xué)生校園侵權(quán)案件時劃分責(zé)任的注意事項提出了自己的意見和建議,以期對未成年人提供更好的司法保護。本文的主要論述點:一是小鋒“推”小田,構(gòu)不構(gòu)成“招惹”,屬不屬于“過錯”,以及侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的“因果關(guān)系”,對招惹、過錯、因果關(guān)系三方面做了比較和論述;二是通過剖析爭議焦點論述學(xué)校的責(zé)任;三是結(jié)合留守兒童的現(xiàn)狀論述未成年人監(jiān)護人的責(zé)任。最后,筆者重新劃分了各侵權(quán)責(zé)任人的責(zé)任承擔(dān)。
[Abstract]:Minors are the future of the motherland, the hope of the nation, the protection of their healthy growth is the common responsibility of the whole society. However, the frequent occurrence of campus infringement cases has deeply pierced the hearts of students, parents and teachers, and aroused the attention of the whole society. This paper takes a case of campus infringement of underage students as the starting point, which occurred in 2011 and is located in a rural school in the poor mountainous area of Liangping County, Chongqing. Both sides are left-behind children, and the third party is the school. The damage was caused by a child's lifelong disability in the left eye and finally brought to court because of the inability to reach an agreement on financial compensation. Including schools, those involved are vulnerable groups, and it is extremely difficult for judges to divide responsibilities, not only to appease people with damaged personal rights, but also to consider whether other responsible persons can afford it financially. It is also necessary to consider that after the completion of the case, the parties will also get along in the same school, the same class and other "outside the law." This paper is a case analysis of the campus tort case of underage students. There are eight main controversial points in the case, respectively, involving the "provoking rules", "fault identification" and "causality" in tort liability. There are eight aspects: "the legal relationship between the school and the students", "the legal relationship between the teacher and the student", "the fault that the guardian is objectively unable to fulfill the guardianship obligation" and "the responsibility of each tort responsible person". After the campus injury accident of underage students occurs, it must be properly dealt with in order to ensure the harmony and stability of campus and family. From the point of view of tort law, this paper analyzes the liability composition, liability burden and reduction of responsibility of underage students in campus tort cases from three aspects, in order to deal with them as properly as possible from the perspective of trial, resolve contradictions and reduce losses. So as to ensure the harmony of family, campus and society, and protect the healthy growth of children and adolescents. The full text is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the cases of Xiaofeng v. Oda, the central primary school of Daguan Town, the right to life, the right to health and the right to physical rights. This paper comments on the reasons and results of the adjudication of the case and sums up the controversial focus of the case from the case. The second part combs and analyzes the focus of the dispute and combines the liability composition of the campus tort cases of underage students, and makes a comprehensive analysis of the eight controversial focuses from these three aspects. In this case, the author thinks that there are several defects in the court judgment. The third part is to synthesize the previous analysis to draw the conclusion of this case; the fourth part puts forward its own opinions and suggestions on the matters needing attention in the trial of minor students' campus tort cases, in order to provide better judicial protection for minors. The main points of this paper are as follows: first, Xiaofeng "pushes" Oda, does not constitute "provoking", whether it belongs to "fault", as well as the "causality" in tort liability law, and makes a comparison and discussion on the three aspects of provoking, fault and causality; The second is to discuss the responsibility of the school through the analysis of the focus of the dispute; the third is to discuss the responsibility of the guardian of the minor according to the present situation of the left-behind children. Finally, the author redivides the liability of each tort responsible person.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.1
本文編號：2479251
[Abstract]:Minors are the future of the motherland, the hope of the nation, the protection of their healthy growth is the common responsibility of the whole society. However, the frequent occurrence of campus infringement cases has deeply pierced the hearts of students, parents and teachers, and aroused the attention of the whole society. This paper takes a case of campus infringement of underage students as the starting point, which occurred in 2011 and is located in a rural school in the poor mountainous area of Liangping County, Chongqing. Both sides are left-behind children, and the third party is the school. The damage was caused by a child's lifelong disability in the left eye and finally brought to court because of the inability to reach an agreement on financial compensation. Including schools, those involved are vulnerable groups, and it is extremely difficult for judges to divide responsibilities, not only to appease people with damaged personal rights, but also to consider whether other responsible persons can afford it financially. It is also necessary to consider that after the completion of the case, the parties will also get along in the same school, the same class and other "outside the law." This paper is a case analysis of the campus tort case of underage students. There are eight main controversial points in the case, respectively, involving the "provoking rules", "fault identification" and "causality" in tort liability. There are eight aspects: "the legal relationship between the school and the students", "the legal relationship between the teacher and the student", "the fault that the guardian is objectively unable to fulfill the guardianship obligation" and "the responsibility of each tort responsible person". After the campus injury accident of underage students occurs, it must be properly dealt with in order to ensure the harmony and stability of campus and family. From the point of view of tort law, this paper analyzes the liability composition, liability burden and reduction of responsibility of underage students in campus tort cases from three aspects, in order to deal with them as properly as possible from the perspective of trial, resolve contradictions and reduce losses. So as to ensure the harmony of family, campus and society, and protect the healthy growth of children and adolescents. The full text is divided into four parts. The first part introduces the cases of Xiaofeng v. Oda, the central primary school of Daguan Town, the right to life, the right to health and the right to physical rights. This paper comments on the reasons and results of the adjudication of the case and sums up the controversial focus of the case from the case. The second part combs and analyzes the focus of the dispute and combines the liability composition of the campus tort cases of underage students, and makes a comprehensive analysis of the eight controversial focuses from these three aspects. In this case, the author thinks that there are several defects in the court judgment. The third part is to synthesize the previous analysis to draw the conclusion of this case; the fourth part puts forward its own opinions and suggestions on the matters needing attention in the trial of minor students' campus tort cases, in order to provide better judicial protection for minors. The main points of this paper are as follows: first, Xiaofeng "pushes" Oda, does not constitute "provoking", whether it belongs to "fault", as well as the "causality" in tort liability law, and makes a comparison and discussion on the three aspects of provoking, fault and causality; The second is to discuss the responsibility of the school through the analysis of the focus of the dispute; the third is to discuss the responsibility of the guardian of the minor according to the present situation of the left-behind children. Finally, the author redivides the liability of each tort responsible person.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.1
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 張敏;;德國侵權(quán)法上的招惹規(guī)則——從追蹤人請求損害賠償?shù)呐欣蛯W(xué)說切入[J];比較法研究;2014年05期
2 張力;鄭志峰;;功能論視角下我國監(jiān)護人責(zé)任的反思與重解[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2014年02期
3 程嘯;;過失相抵與無過錯責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2014年01期
4 孫大偉;劉舜英;;侵權(quán)違法性理論的功能探究——基于德國法脈絡(luò)的考察[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2013年05期
5 楊立新;陶盈;;校園欺凌行為的侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[J];福建論壇(人文社會科學(xué)版);2013年08期
6 郭明瑞;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成中因果關(guān)系理論的反思[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年04期
7 鐘桂榮;;論中小學(xué)校園傷害事故的歸責(zé)與預(yù)防[J];浙江師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2013年03期
8 姬新江;;教育機構(gòu)侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的理論爭議與解析——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》為中心[J];政法學(xué)刊;2013年02期
9 張新寶;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任一般條款的理解與適用[J];法律適用;2012年10期
10 金可可;胡堅明;;不完全行為能力人侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成之檢討[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年05期
相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條
1 白泉民;;強化裁判文書說理：讓公正司法更有說服力[N];人民法院報;2014年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 戴萱;監(jiān)護人責(zé)任的構(gòu)成論[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年
，本文編號：2479251
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2479251.html
最近更新
教材專著
