“北京驴友夏特古道案”评析及类案思考

发布时间：2018-03-29 12:26

本文选题：安全保障义务　切入点：自冒风险　出处：《湖南大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：自助游在我国尚属新生事物，，我国法律条款亦未对其进行明确规制。“夏特古道”一案中，原告、被告和法院三方都对驴头是否承担对驴友的安全保障义务有不同的理解。究竟什么是安全保障义务？在自助游的过程中，驴头与驴友之间是否存在安全保障义务？存在何种程度的安全保障义务？自冒风险是否成为免责或者减轻责任的事由？本案是否适用公平责任？具体而言，第一，从《侵权责任法》的法条规制主体角度出发，自助游不属于法条规制的群众性活动；从《合同法》所规定的的合同构成角度出发，自助游驴头与驴友之间并没有成立合同的效果意思；从《消费者权益保护法》保护的主体角度出发，由于自助游的非营利性，所以其不能援引该法条作为安全保障义务的来源；从先行行为的构成要件角度出发，自助游中驴头与驴友之间没有法律强制的保护和照看义务，且驴友死亡原因来自于不可预料的自然灾害，因此驴头不应承担安全保障义务；从危险可预见性角度出发，自助游的每个参与者都是明知危险存在并且追求克服危险的刺激感，驴头不应为驴友的享受刺激行为承担责任。总而言之，从以上五个方面来说，AA制自助游组织者不负有对参与者的安全保障义务；第二，AA制自助游中受害驴友由于路线选择错误和自救能力的薄弱导致其死亡，其对自身的死亡结果存在一定的过错；第三，从法律适用的角度出发，本案原被告之间明显不存在法律强制义务，而属于道德上的互助互爱义务，故不应适用“公平责任”。从2008年至今已发生多起AA制自助游纠纷，对已决AA制自助游案例裁判结果进行类型化分析得出以下结论：在坚持“同案同判”的基础上应当适当引用“区别的技术”，维护司法的公平正义。
[Abstract]:Self-help tour is a new thing in our country, and the legal provisions of our country have not clearly regulated it. In the case of "Charte Road", the plaintiff, The defendant and the court have a different understanding of whether the donkey bear the obligation of safety and security to the donkey. What exactly is the obligation of safety and security? Are there any security obligations between the donkey head and the donkey during the self-help tour? To what extent are the safeguards obligations in place? Is it an exemption or an abatement to risk yourself? Is fair liability applicable in this case? Specifically speaking, first, from the perspective of the subject of regulation in the Tort liability Law, the self-help tour is not a mass activity regulated by the law, and from the angle of the contract constitution stipulated in the contract Law, From the point of view of the main body of the protection of consumer rights and interests, because of the non-profit nature of the self-help tour, it can not be invoked as the source of the obligation of safety and security. From the point of view of the constitutive elements of the antecedent act, there is no legal obligation of protection and care between the donkey head and the traveller in the self-help tour, and the cause of death of the donkey comes from the unpredictable natural disaster, so the donkey head should not undertake the obligation of safety and security; From the perspective of danger predictability, each participant in the self-help tour was aware of the danger and pursued a sense of excitement to overcome it, and the donkey head should not be held responsible for the pleasure behavior of the traveller. From the above five aspects, the organizers of the AA self-help tour do not have the obligation to ensure the safety of the participants; the second, the injured traveller in the AA self-help tour died because of the wrong route choice and the weak ability of self-help. Third, from the perspective of the application of the law, there is obviously no compulsory legal obligation between the original defendants in this case, but a moral duty of mutual help and love, so "fair responsibility" should not be applied. Since 2008, there have been many disputes over AA self-help tours. Based on the type analysis of the adjudication results of the decided AA system, the following conclusions are drawn: on the basis of insisting on the "same judgment in the same case", "differentiated technology" should be properly applied to safeguard the fairness and justice 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】：2013
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】