我国侵权补充责任制度反思

发布时间：2018-04-27 09:25

本文选题：侵权补充责任 + 概念　；参考：《暨南大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：侵权补充责任为我国独创的责任形态,体现了我国立法的积极创新和勇敢尝试。2009年《侵权责任法》正式确立了侵权补充责任制度。主要解决存在第三人直接侵权时,安全保义务人承担责任的问题。但是侵权补充责任制度确立以来,却受到了颇多争议,补充责任制度本身存在诸多问题。本文只探讨以第三人直接侵权为前提,补充责任人承担责任的问题。本文从实践出发,立足于对传统补充责任的认识,挖掘补充责任存在的矛盾和问题,分析矛盾和问题产生的原因,在此基础上重新理解补充责任,对补充责任的概念进行重新界定,探寻补充责任性质及真正的价值所在,并以此为依据探寻补充责任的构成和制度适用。本文正文分为四个部分。第一部分首先对侵权补充责任做初步介绍,然后列举案例说明实践中法院对类似案件采取不同判决,进而引出补充责任存在的问题。第二部分指出实践中产生同案不同判的原因,总结学者们对于传统观念上的补充责任的概念、性质、构成要件、适用等方面的不同观点和理由。立法的含糊和理论界对于这些问题的争议就是导致司法实践难以统一的原因。第三部分提出自己的观点。首先,重新界定补充责任概念。其次,在这种新概念的基础之上,重新探索侵权补充责任的性质及立法价值。侵权补充责任既具有保护弱者的侵权法精神,又具有维护社会和谐和稳定的效果,还具有平衡多方利益的功能,同时在理论上也丰富了传统侵权责任形态,既具备理论价值、也具备实践价值。第四部分重新设计侵权补充责任的制度。首先,重新构想补充责任的构成要件,提出区别于传统三要件或四要件的新四要件。其次,对于补充责任的具体适用提出构想,补充责任应当承担第二顺位赔偿,有限范围内的补充,并且应当享有追偿权。
[Abstract]:The tort supplementary liability is the original responsibility form of our country, which embodies the positive innovation and brave attempt of our country's legislation. In 2009, the Tort liability Law formally established the tort supplementary liability system. It mainly solves the problem that the security obligor bears the responsibility when the third party directly infringes. However, since the establishment of the tort supplementary liability system, it has been a lot of controversy, and there are many problems in the supplementary liability system itself. This article only discusses the third person direct infringement as the premise, complements the responsible person to bear the responsibility question. This paper starts from practice, based on the understanding of the traditional supplementary responsibility, excavates the contradictions and problems existing in the supplementary responsibility, analyzes the causes of the contradictions and problems, and reunderstands the supplementary responsibility on this basis. This paper redefines the concept of supplementary responsibility, explores the nature and true value of supplementary responsibility, and explores the constitution and system application of supplementary responsibility. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part makes a preliminary introduction to the supplementary liability of tort, and then enumerates the cases to illustrate that the court adopts different judgments on similar cases in practice, and then leads to the problems existing in the supplementary liability. The second part points out the reasons for different judgments in the same case in practice, and summarizes the different viewpoints and reasons of scholars on the concept, nature, constitutive elements and application of complementary responsibility in the traditional concept. The vagueness of legislation and the controversy of theoretical circle are the reasons why judicial practice is difficult to unify. The third part puts forward one's own viewpoint. First, redefine the concept of supplementary responsibility. Secondly, on the basis of this new concept, we reexplore the nature and legislative value of tort supplementary liability. The tort supplementary liability has not only the spirit of tort law to protect the weak, but also the effect of maintaining social harmony and stability, as well as the function of balancing the interests of various parties. At the same time, it enriches the traditional form of tort liability theoretically and has theoretical value. It also has practical value. The fourth part redesigns the system of tort supplementary liability. First of all, reconceive the constitutive elements of supplementary responsibility, and put forward the new four elements which are different from the traditional three elements or four elements. Secondly, for the specific application of supplementary liability, the supplementary liability should bear the second order compensation, within a limited range of supplementary, and should enjoy the right of recovery.
【学位授予单位】：暨南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】