论盗窃者死亡的赔偿责任

发布时间：2018-03-08 20:02

本文选题：被征收房屋　切入点：侵权责任　出处：《西南政法大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：安全保障义务是指，行为人在从事某些活动时，如果预见自己的行为会导致他人遭受损害，他们应当采取合理的措施，保障他人的人身或者财产利益免受自己行为的侵害。安全保障义务既包含了对物的安全保障义务也包含了对人的安全保障义务，在我国20世纪90年代末前，安全保障义务理论仅仅指物的安全保障义务，不包括对人的安全保障义务，由于第三人侵权案件的大量出现，为保护受害人的利益，最高人民法院才在2003年12月28日颁布的《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中明确了经营者对进入者人身安全承担安全保障的义务1，此后，该条文亦被《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第37条2所吸收。但该条文所规定的承担安保责任的主体是公共场所的管理人或者群众性活动的组织者，由于公共场所和群众性活动具有开放性，因此法规对进入者的身份并未进行区分，从而也未区分对于不同进入者的不同的注意义务。但是，如果抢劫者因商场地面湿滑跌倒导致伤残和抢劫失败，商场是否应当区分对进入商场购物者和进入商场抢劫者的注意义务，是否应当对抢劫者承担安保责任？若要商场对抢劫者承担因跌伤造成的损失，显然是不符合常理和一般善良风俗的。此外，由于我国法律对涉及私人空间的不动产侵权缺少法律规定，其中对于区分进入者身份的规定仅有受害人在不动产权人的非经营场所的不动产之内或之上受到侵害，当受害人要求不产权人对其承担侵权赔偿责任时，我国法院出于对受害人权益的保护，通常会采取过失相抵原则对案件进行裁判，这样虽然可以最大限度的保障受害人的利益，但是对于不动产权人而言却加重了其义务，不利于对私权的保护。因此，区分进入者的身份并对不同进入者承担不同的注意义务应是承担安保责任的应有之内容。本文选取非法进入被征收房屋造成自身损害的案例，试图对不动产权人应当承担的注意义务进行阐述。石某、廖某等人经协商进入廖某已被征收的房屋中拆除房屋牟利，石某不慎摔伤致死，某征地办公室及廖某等人是否应当对石某的损害承担赔偿？法院判决某征地办公室及廖某等人根据赔偿能力的不同分别对石某的损害承担赔偿责任，笔者认为：本案受害者石某不仅未经被征收房屋权利人——某征地办公室的同意，，反而其进入被征收房屋的目的是窃取被征收房屋的钢筋，进入者怀着侵犯不动产权人权益的目的进入不动产，又因自身原因造成损害，却判令被侵权人——某征地办公室承担侵权赔偿责任，这样的判例不仅于法无据，而且有悖情理。本文分别从安保责任、物之损害责任的法律适用、某征地办公室的主体问题、某征地办公应当承担的一般安保责任及安保责任的免除等方面进行论述，认为：某征地办公室不应当对石某的损害承担赔偿责任。此外，由于本案中还涉及到其他与石某一起进入被征收房屋的人是否应当对石某的损害承担赔偿责任问题，本文从一起进入者的主体问题、适用法律问题等方面进行分析，认为一起进入者也不应当对石某的损害承担赔偿责任。
[Abstract]:Security obligations refers to the behavior of people engaged in certain activities, if anticipate your behavior will cause others to suffer damage, they shall take reasonable measures to protect other personal or property interests from infringement. Their security obligations include both of the security obligation also contains the people security obligations in China before the end of 1990s, the security obligation theory only refers to the obligation of security, not including the security obligation, because of the emergence of a large number of third infringement cases, for the protection of the interests of the victims, explanations of the Supreme People's Court issued in December 28, 2003 "on issues concerning the application of law the trial of personal injury compensation case clearly the personal safety of operators to assume security obligations 1, thereafter, the provisions are" People's Republic of China The tort liability law > thirty-seventh 2 absorbed. But the main assume security responsibility stipulated in the provisions of the managers of public places or organizers of mass activities due to public places and activities of the masses is open, so the regulations did not identity to distinguish, which did not distinguish for different entrants the different duty of care. However, if the robbery because the mall ground slippery falls may lead to disability and rob failure, whether shopping malls should distinguish the duty of care to enter the shopping malls and enter the mall robbery, should bear the responsibility for the security of looters? If you want to take responsibility for the loss caused by the market falls on the robber, apparently do not meet the common sense and general good customs. In addition, due to the law of our country to the private space of the immovable property infringement is lack of legal provisions, which entered the body to distinguish a gauge Set only the victim in real property of non operating real estate sites within or above are violated, when the victim does not require property owners to assume the tort liability in the courts of our country, in order to protect the rights of victims, usually take the principle of contributory negligence to the case for the referee, although this may be the interests of the victim maximum security, but for real property has exacerbated its obligations, is not conducive to the protection of private rights. Therefore, the identity and the distinction into different entry bear different duty of care should undertake security responsibility should be content. This paper selects illegal expropriation of houses caused by entering their own damage case, the duty of care to immovable property rights shall be liable for this paper.
Danmou, Liao et al after consultation into liaomou has been levied on housing demolition of houses for profit, danmou accidentally falls to death, is a land office and Liao et al of danmou shall be liable for compensation for damages? The court of a land office and Liao et al according to different compensation ability on danmou damage bear the responsibility for compensation, I think: the victims danmou not only without the expropriation of housing rights, agreed to a land office, but the houses to be expropriated to steal steel houses to be expropriated, entrants with violations of real property rights to enter the real estate, and damage for their own reasons, but ordered the tort liability for Tort -- a land office bearers, this case not only have no basis in law, but also contrary to reason. This paper from the security responsibility, the liability for damage The application of law, the subject of a land expropriation office, the general security responsibilities and the exemption of security responsibilities of a land acquisition office shall be discussed. It is considered that a land requisition office should not be liable for damages of Shimou.
In addition, because this case also involves other danmou together into the houses to be expropriated person shall be liable for compensation of danmou damage, this paper from the main body together into the problem, the applicable legal issues such as analysis, think together entrants should not be liable to danmou damage.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923;D920.5

【参考文献】