AA制自助游索赔第一案评析
发布时间：2018-10-26 14:16
【摘要】：AA制自助游的形成是基于各参与者的共同兴趣,为实现结交朋友、愉悦身心之目的而为,欠缺“效果意思”,因而不具有法律行为的属性,此种情形符合“情谊行为”的本质特征,通常情形下,在各参与者之间不成立特定的法律关系。尽管如此,在参与者违反某种注意义务侵害他人的合法权益时,其仍然可能基于过错承担侵权责任。随着客观过错理论的发展,过错实际转化为对于某种注意义务的违反,在本案中则具体表现为对于安全保障义务的违反。鉴于AA制自助游的—般参与者之间作为不具有特定法律关系的“陌生人”,让其互相负担安全保障义务有违公平正义,而对于“危险之源开启者”的组织者,则应承担安全保障义务,然而,本案被告均不符合组织者的本质特征,因此本案并不存在具体的组织者,所有被告均不应承担安全保障义务,自然也不应承担侵权责任。在此情形下,能否适用公平责任将成为本案中原告损失能否得到分担的最后一道防线。但是,公平责任的适用并非完全依赖法官的自由裁量,而是必须具备以下三个要件：即依据侵权法的归责原则受害人无法得到救济、受害人损害严重且无过错以及加害人的行为与损害结果之间具有因果关系。本案中,在受害人自身存在明显过错以及被告行为与损害结果不存在因果关系的情况下,二审法院适用公平责任于法无据,这种裁判思维的背后折射出裁判者对于适用公平责任的随意性,破坏了司法的权威性。
[Abstract]:The formation of the AA self-help tour is based on the common interests of the participants, in order to achieve the purpose of making friends and pleasing the body and mind, it lacks the "effect meaning", so it does not have the attribute of legal action. This kind of situation accords with the essential characteristic of "friendship act", usually, there is no specific legal relationship between the participants. However, when the participant violates some duty of care and infringes the legitimate rights and interests of others, he may be liable for tort on the basis of fault. With the development of the objective fault theory, the fault actually transforms into the violation of some duty of care, and in this case it is manifested as the violation of the duty of safety and security. Given that AA self-help tour participants are "strangers" who do not have a specific legal relationship, it would be unfair and just for them to share security obligations with each other, and for the organizers of the "source of danger opener", However, the defendant in this case does not accord with the essential characteristics of the organizer, so there is no specific organizer in this case, all the defendants should not undertake the obligation of security, and naturally should not bear the tort liability. In this case, the application of fair liability will be the last line of defense for the plaintiff's loss to be shared in this case. However, the application of fair liability is not entirely dependent on the discretion of the judge, but must have the following three elements: the victim cannot get relief according to the imputation principle of tort law. There is a causal relationship between the victim's behavior and the result of the damage. In the present case, in the case of the victim's own obvious fault and where there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the result of the damage, the court of second instance has no basis for applying fair liability to the law. This kind of judgment thinking reflects the arbitrariness of the referee to the application of fair responsibility and undermines the authority of the judicature.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923;D920.5
本文编号：2295999
[Abstract]:The formation of the AA self-help tour is based on the common interests of the participants, in order to achieve the purpose of making friends and pleasing the body and mind, it lacks the "effect meaning", so it does not have the attribute of legal action. This kind of situation accords with the essential characteristic of "friendship act", usually, there is no specific legal relationship between the participants. However, when the participant violates some duty of care and infringes the legitimate rights and interests of others, he may be liable for tort on the basis of fault. With the development of the objective fault theory, the fault actually transforms into the violation of some duty of care, and in this case it is manifested as the violation of the duty of safety and security. Given that AA self-help tour participants are "strangers" who do not have a specific legal relationship, it would be unfair and just for them to share security obligations with each other, and for the organizers of the "source of danger opener", However, the defendant in this case does not accord with the essential characteristics of the organizer, so there is no specific organizer in this case, all the defendants should not undertake the obligation of security, and naturally should not bear the tort liability. In this case, the application of fair liability will be the last line of defense for the plaintiff's loss to be shared in this case. However, the application of fair liability is not entirely dependent on the discretion of the judge, but must have the following three elements: the victim cannot get relief according to the imputation principle of tort law. There is a causal relationship between the victim's behavior and the result of the damage. In the present case, in the case of the victim's own obvious fault and where there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the result of the damage, the court of second instance has no basis for applying fair liability to the law. This kind of judgment thinking reflects the arbitrariness of the referee to the application of fair responsibility and undermines the authority of the judicature.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923;D920.5
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 屈茂辉;;论民法上的注意义务[J];北方法学;2007年01期
2 侯国跃;;论“驴友”遇险事件的民事责任[J];重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版);2010年01期
3 徐祖林;;论自助游意外事故中的民事法律责任[J];广西民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2010年02期
4 蒙晓阳;余兵;;自助游驴友应否互负安全保障义务?——以广西南宁“中国驴友第一案”两审判决为例[J];广西政法管理干部学院学报;2010年02期
5 张力;刘中杰;;户外自助旅游遇险事件法律分析——从“南宁7.9案”到“重庆7.11事件”[J];广西社会科学;2010年05期
6 王爱军;;英美侵权法中的介入因素与取代原因理论评析[J];济宁学院学报;2007年05期
7 邱鹭风;;论情谊行为侵权责任——以一起“情谊行为侵权案”的判决为分析样本[J];南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学版);2008年05期
8 贾邦俊;;《侵权责任法》中安全保障义务“合理限度”的思考——从比较法角度审视[J];绍兴文理学院学报(哲学社会科学);2010年06期
9 高俊雪;;从AA制看中西文化差异[J];文学界(理论版);2010年02期
10 颜贻泼;;论以网络论坛形式组织自驾游之组织者的侵权责任[J];现代商业;2008年35期
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 刘迪;论社会活动组织者的安全保障义务[D];天津师范大学;2010年
，本文编号：2295999
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2295999.html
