分担损失规则的法律属性与责任类型研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 21:46

本文选题：分担损失规则 + 公平责任　；参考：《浙江财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文是对侵权法中分担损失规则法律属性和责任类型的研究。分担损失规则是指在双方对于损害的发生均无过错时,根据实际情况,由双方分担损失的一项法律制度。分担损失规则具备一定的抽象性、模糊性,而且在司法裁判中可能被滥用。但在现今社会背景下,其能够平衡利益、有效实现法律救济、符合我国国情和传统思想观念、具有道德上的引导意义等诸多基础,仍是一项值得重视的法律制度。对于分担损失规则的研究,不仅可以规范分担损失规则的解释和适用,保证司法裁判的公正合理,还能使争议问题统属于一个法律解释、适用体系,为我国民法典的编纂提供支持。第一章,首先明确界定侵权法中分担损失规则的含义以及简要介绍分担损失规则在比较法上的立法例,详述分担损失规则在我国立法上的演进历程。然后,通过实证研究方法,归纳分担损失规则在司法裁判中的宣示性引用和错误适用的问题。最后,通过分析我国分担损失规则的法律实践问题,总结问题背后法院对于分担损失法律属性认识不清、责任类型区分不准的不足。据此,为下文的论述提出问题,为进一步阐述分担损失规则的属性和责任类型先予铺垫。第二章重点分析分担损失规则的法律属性,明确其属于公平责任。首先,以学术争议观点的归纳总结为前提,分析分担损失规则属性研究的思路与争议点。对于分担损失规则的属性,存在四种观点,即认为其属于归责原则的一种、认为其属于法定补偿之债,认为其只是分担损失的规则而不属于归责原则、认为其属于无过错责任的范畴。其次,从解释论角度论证分担损失规则属于公平责任。对于侵权责任范围的界定以及《侵权责任法》中的“适当补偿”是否属于责任等问题,不能做最浅层的历史解释和词语对比,应当充分回溯到侵权责任的历史起源,对比我国立法的各个阶段,运用最准确的解释论方法解释分担损失规则的法律属性。最后,从分担损失规则属于法定补偿义务或是公平责任的争议点入手,通过对两种定性的比较,论证公平责任解释的优先性。第三章详述公平责任在分担损失规则具体类型中的确立。介绍侵权责任法中关于分担损失规则的类型化规定。借助实证研究的方法,分析公平责任在分担损失规则具体制度中的优先适用,构建起分担损失规则的基本责任类型结构,进一步明确公平责任在我国侵权责任法中的地位。分担损失规则的基本框架是以一般条款为基础,以类型化规定为补充。从《侵权责任法》的规定来看,第二十四条规定属于分担损失规则的一般条款,第二十三条、第三十一条和第三十三条和第八十七条属于类型化的规定。整体而言,我国《侵权责任法》对分担损失规则的规定较为简单,应当逐步完善。第四章主要论述了分担损失规则的制度完善措施。文章结合现有法律规定和民法典编纂的立法背景,从分担损失规则适用范围的扩张性解释、引入动态系统论进行综合认定和分担损失规则的立法设计等三个方面,对侵权责任法中的分担损失规则进行改进和完善。
[Abstract]:This article is a study of the legal attributes and types of liability for the sharing of loss rules in the tort law. The rule of sharing loss refers to a legal system of sharing the loss according to the actual situation when both sides have no fault in the occurrence of the damage. But in the present social background, it is still a legal system which is worth paying attention to, which can balance the interests, realize the legal remedies effectively, conform to the national conditions and traditional ideas of our country, have the moral guiding significance and so on. To ensure the justice and rationality of the judicial referee, it can also make the dispute issue belong to a legal interpretation, the application system, and provide support for the compilation of the civil code of our country. In the first chapter, the first chapter clearly defines the meaning of the rules of sharing the loss in the tort law and briefly introduces the legislation in comparison with the law of sharing the loss, and details the rules of sharing the loss in me. The course of the evolution of national law. Then, through the empirical research method, it summarizes the declarative reference and the wrong application of the sharing loss rules in the judicial referees. Finally, through the analysis of the legal practice problems of our country's sharing of loss rules, it is concluded that the court is not aware of the legal attributes of sharing the loss, and the types of responsibility are not differentiated. The second chapter focuses on the analysis of the legal attributes of the sharing of loss rules, and makes clear that it belongs to the fair responsibility. First, the study of the attributes of the sharing loss rules is analyzed on the premise of the general conclusion of the academic dispute viewpoint. There are four views on the attribute of sharing the rule of loss, that is, it belongs to the principle of imputation, that it belongs to the legal compensation debt, that it is only the rule of sharing the loss, not the principle of imputation, and that it belongs to the model of no fault liability. Secondly, from the angle of explanation, the rule of sharing loss is proved to be the genera of the sharing of the rules of loss. As to the fair liability, the definition of the scope of the liability for tort and whether the "appropriate compensation" in the tort liability law belongs to the responsibility, and not the most shallow historical explanation and the contrast of words, should be fully traced back to the historical origin of the tort liability, comparing the various stages of the legislation in China, and using the most accurate interpretation method to explain the points. In the end, starting with the dispute points of the legal compensation obligation or the fair responsibility of the sharing of the loss rules, the priority of the interpretation of the fair liability is demonstrated by the comparison of the two kinds of qualitative comparisons. The third chapter details the establishment of the fair liability in the specific types of the sharing of the loss rules. By using the method of empirical research, this paper analyzes the priority application of fair liability in the specific system of sharing loss rules, constructs the basic type of responsibility structure to share the rules of loss, and further clarified the status of the fair liability in the tort liability law of China. The basic framework of the sharing of the rules of the loss of losses is based on general terms. On the basis of the provisions of the typed provisions. From the provisions of the tort liability law, the twenty-fourth provisions are the general terms, twenty-third, thirty-first and thirty-third and eighty-seventh of the rules for the sharing of the loss rules. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the system improvement measures to share the rules of loss. The article combines the legislative background of the existing legal provisions and the compiling of the civil code, from the expansionary interpretation of the scope of the applicable scope of the sharing of the rules of the loss of loss, and the introduction of the three aspects of the legislative design of the comprehensive identification and the sharing of the loss rules by the introduction of the dynamic system theory. We should improve and perfect the sharing loss rule in tort liability law.

【学位授予单位】：浙江财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】