本文關(guān)鍵詞： 部分連帶責(zé)任 類型化要素 損害可區(qū)分性 事實(shí)因果關(guān)系　出處：《廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：數(shù)人侵權(quán)類型化困境和典型連帶責(zé)任彈性不足,是《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》適用的兩大難題。傳統(tǒng)學(xué)說(shuō)及實(shí)踐傾向于將二者孤立看待,鮮有成效,未認(rèn)清問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)在于責(zé)任效果類型的不周延。為使現(xiàn)有責(zé)任效果體系周延,提出部分連帶責(zé)任的效果類型,性質(zhì)上屬于典型連帶責(zé)任的下位概念。部分連帶責(zé)任分為一般性的部分連帶責(zé)任和建構(gòu)性的部分連帶責(zé)任。一般性的部分連帶責(zé)任以部分損害的可區(qū)分性、部分重疊性因果關(guān)系為類型化要素,構(gòu)成責(zé)任效果正當(dāng)化的“一體性”,由此建構(gòu)出部分損害可區(qū)分型、部分重疊因果關(guān)系型的責(zé)任類型框架。前者分為時(shí)間介入先后型和作為與不作為結(jié)合型部分連帶責(zé)任;后者分為部分因果關(guān)系重疊型和因果關(guān)系差異顯著型部分連帶責(zé)任。建構(gòu)性的部分連帶責(zé)任以公共政策以及個(gè)案正義考量為類型要素,分別在立法明確規(guī)定或裁判者對(duì)現(xiàn)有請(qǐng)求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)規(guī)范解釋中得到運(yùn)用。如此,既符合單獨(dú)侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成和自己責(zé)任的邏輯,又能清晰合理地實(shí)現(xiàn)行為人清償不能的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分擔(dān)。
[Abstract]:The difficulties of tort typology and the lack of elasticity of typical joint and several liability are the two difficult problems in the application of Tort liability Law. The traditional theory and practice tend to treat the two in isolation, which has little effect. The crux of the problem lies in the inconsistency of the types of liability effect. In order to make the existing liability effect system complete, the author puts forward the effect types of some joint and several liability. Part of joint and several liability is divided into general part joint and several liability and constructive part joint and several liability. Part of overlapping causality is a typological element, which constitutes the "unity" of the legitimacy of the effect of responsibility, and thus constructs the differentiable type of partial damage. The former is divided into time intervention priority type and combination of action and omission type partial joint and several liability; The latter is divided into two types: partial causality overlap type and causality difference significant type partial joint and several liability. Constructive partial joint and several liability is based on public policy and case justice considerations. They are respectively used in the legislative provisions or in the interpretation of the existing basic norms of the right of claim. This not only accords with the logic of the constitution of the individual tort liability and its own responsibility, but also clearly and reasonably realizes the risk sharing that the actor can not pay off the debts.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣東財(cái)經(jīng)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 陶盈;;環(huán)境分別侵權(quán)行為的法律適用[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年05期

2 張平華;;連帶責(zé)任的彈性不足及其克服[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2015年05期

3 周江洪;;絕對(duì)過(guò)失相抵抑或相對(duì)過(guò)失相抵?——數(shù)人侵權(quán)情形過(guò)失相抵方式之考察[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2014年10期

4 王竹;;論數(shù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任分擔(dān)原則——對(duì)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》上“相應(yīng)的”數(shù)人侵權(quán)責(zé)任立法技術(shù)的解讀[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年02期

5 董春華;;論美國(guó)侵權(quán)法限制運(yùn)動(dòng)及其發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];比較法研究;2014年02期

6 葉金強(qiáng);;解釋論視野下的共同侵權(quán)[J];交大法學(xué);2014年01期

7 楊立新;;多數(shù)人侵權(quán)行為及責(zé)任理論的新發(fā)展[J];法學(xué);2012年07期

8 李中原;;論機(jī)動(dòng)車所有人與使用人的責(zé)任承擔(dān)機(jī)制——關(guān)于《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第49條和第52條的再思考[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

9 曹險(xiǎn)峰;;數(shù)人侵權(quán)的體系構(gòu)成——對(duì)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法第8條至第12條的解釋[J];法學(xué)研究;2011年05期

10 王竹;;論教唆行為與幫助行為的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法學(xué)論壇;2011年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉海安;過(guò)錯(cuò)對(duì)侵權(quán)法上無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任賠償范圍的影響[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1520076