比例责任在多因不明侵权中的适用研究

发布时间：2018-06-06 06:02

本文选题：多因不明侵权 + 比例责任　；参考：《江西财经大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：现行的《侵权责任法》针对共同危险行为、无意思联络分别侵权行为、高空抛物致人损害行为等涉及因果关系不明侵权的问题制定了责任分担的规则,通过连带责任、平均责任、补偿责任等方式为受害人提供了法律救济,体现了对受害人的倾斜保护。但是,通过对生活中的现实案例进行简要分析和问题总结,我们会产生以下两个困惑:一是因果关系的困惑,二是责任分担的困惑。因果关系的困惑主要源自于对“全有或全无”思维方式的质疑,以及反思逻辑上或哲学上对原因类型的分类,设想是否存在第四种原因类型,即“非充分且非必要条件原因”。责任分担的困惑主要源自于对连带责任和平均责任适用的公平性考察,期望采用“比例责任”平衡双方权益,补正连带责任适用的公平性欠缺问题和平均责任适用的理据不足问题。为了协调行为自由和保护安全两方面价值,平衡受害人与行为人的正当利益,使公平正义理念在侵权责任分担中得以充分体现,有必要在多因不明侵权中适用“比例责任”。所谓的“比例责任”可以分为广义上的比例责任和狭义上的比例责任。在多因不明侵权中所适用的比例责任主要是指狭义上的比例责任。比例责任的适用应当以比例因果关系的运用为前提。比例责任在多因不明侵权中适用的意义主要包括四个方面:一是符合自己责任原则;二是符合侵权责任构成理论中的矫正正义;三是符合侵权责任分担理论中的分配正义;四是符合侵权责任法威慑目的的价值追求。此外,扎实的国内基础和丰富的国外经验是适用比例责任的另外两个重要理由。国内现有的多数人侵权责任制度主要对三种多因不明侵权类型制定了明晰的责任分担规则,这三种多因不明侵权类型分别为共同危险行为、“分别实施,足以造成”的行为、“分别实施,结合造成”的行为。但是,《侵权责任法》中关于共同危险行为的责任分担规则未能有效处理无可责难的原因作为介入因素参与侵权的责任分担难题。原因在于,共同危险行为往往存在因果关系不明的情形,倘若无限制地对共同危险行为人施以连带责任,那么有可能使被告承担并非由自己行为造成的损害赔偿责任,导致对被告产生了过度威慑的后果。同时,《侵权责任法》第12条对于“分别实施,结合造成”的责任分担规定采纳了“平均责任说”。由于“平均责任说”所固有的“一刀切”和“平均主义”思想未能实现法律对不同程度危险制造者进行差异处罚的目的,因此容易导致分别侵权行为人过多或过少地承担损害赔偿责任,从而形成另外一种不公平现象。此外,关于高空抛物致人损害的责任分担规则亦存在缺陷,主要表现在两个方面:其一,容易形成“无辜者代人受过”的不利后果;其二,具备加害可能性的建筑物使用人具体应当承担多少“补偿责任”,法条中并没有量化规定。以上国内责任分担规则的缺陷进一步增强了对比例责任的适用需求。比例责任在多因不明侵权中的适用可以充分借鉴国外经验。域外关于比例责任的理论探讨和实践探索极为丰富多元,涉及的内容和角度也是灵活多样,既包含对基本概念和规则的创新解读,如对损害的重新定义和对因果关系判定规则的改革等;也包括对比例责任适用范围的界定,如美国主要适用于大规模产品侵权、治愈机会丧失,而日本则主要在大气污染侵权中适用比例责任;还包括对社会科学证据的采纳,主要表现为对统计数据和统计概率的认可。为了弥补我国多因不明侵权责任分担规则的缺陷,消除人们在实践中存在的因果关系困惑和责任分担困惑,并进一步拓展适用比例责任的空间,在借鉴域外经验的基础上,还可以从以下四个方面加以努力:一是结合传统侵权法理论中对于比较过错程度和原因力大小的成熟探索,同时引入概率理论、法律经济分析法、市场份额责任理论、生存机会丧失理论及公平正义理念中对于比例判定的量化思考,从而形成判定“比例”的基本方案;二是明确比例责任适用的具体领域;三是综合考虑比例责任适用的限制因素;四是完善《侵权责任法》的立法条款和民事诉讼的证据制度与证明标准。
[Abstract]:The current "tort liability law" provides legal relief to the victims by means of joint and several liability, average liability and compensation liability for the victims. However, through a brief analysis and a summary of the real cases in life, we will generate two puzzles: one is the perplexity of causality and the two is the confusion of responsibility sharing. The perplexity of the causality is mainly derived from the question of "all or all" thinking, and the reflection logically or philosophically to the original. According to the classification of types, it is conceived whether there are fourth types of reasons, that is, "non sufficient and unnecessary reasons". The confusion of responsibility sharing is mainly derived from the fairness of joint liability and average liability. It is expected to use "proportional liability" to balance the rights and interests of both sides, and to make up for the problem of fairness and the average of the applicable joint and several liability. In order to coordinate the two aspects of the value of freedom of conduct and the protection of safety, balance the legitimate interests of the victims and the perpetrator, and make the concept of fair and justice fully embodied in the share of the liability for tort, it is necessary to apply the "proportion responsibility" to the multi cause unidentified infringement. The so-called "proportional liability" can be divided into a broad sense. Proportional liability in the proportion of proportional liability and the proportional liability in the narrow sense. The proportion liability applied in the torts of ambiguity mainly refers to the proportional liability in the narrow sense. The application of proportional liability should be based on the application of proportional causation. The significance of proportional liability in the multi cause unidentified tort mainly includes four aspects: first, it is in line with its own responsibility. The two is to conform to the correct justice in the theory of tort liability constitution; the three is to conform to the distributive justice in the theory of tort liability sharing; four is the pursuit of the value of the tort liability. In addition, a solid domestic basis and rich foreign experience are another two important reasons for the application of proportional liability. The tort liability system has made clear responsibility sharing rules for the three types of multiple causes of unidentified torts. These three types of multiple causes of unidentified torts are respectively common dangerous acts, "respectively implementation, enough to cause", "separate implementation, combined to cause" behavior. However, the liability for joint dangerous act in the tort liability law The sharing rules fail to effectively deal with the unreproach as a responsibility sharing problem involved in the involvement of the tort. The reason is that the joint dangerous act often has a situation of unknown causality. If the joint liability is not limited to the common perpetrator, the defendant will be able to make the defendant bear not the damage caused by his own behavior. The liability for damages leads to the consequences of excessive deterrence to the defendant. At the same time, the twelfth article of tort liability law adopts the "mean responsibility" for the responsibility sharing provisions of "separate implementation and combination". The purpose of the discrepancy punishment for the dangerous manufacturer is easy to cause the infringer to take on the liability for damages too much or too little, thus forming another kind of unfair phenomenon. In addition, there are also defects in the responsibility sharing rules about the damage caused by high altitude parabolic, mainly in two aspects: first, it is easy to form "innocent person". Secondly, how many "compensation liability" should be undertaken by the users of the building with the possibility of injuring, and there is no quantitative provision in the law. The defects of the above domestic responsibility sharing rules further enhance the application demand for proportional liability. For reference to foreign experience, the theoretical and practical exploration of proportional liability is very rich and diverse, and the contents and angles involved are flexible and diverse, including the innovative interpretation of basic concepts and rules, such as redefining the damage and changing the rules of causality determination, and the definition of the scope of application of proportional liability. For example, the United States is mainly applicable to large-scale product infringement and the loss of healing opportunities, while Japan mainly applies proportional liability in the tort of air pollution; it also includes the adoption of social scientific evidence, which is mainly manifested in the recognition of statistical data and statistical probability. In order to make up for the defects of the rules of shared unidentified tort liability in our country, the elimination of people is eliminated. In practice, there are perplexities of causality and responsibility sharing, and further expand the space applicable to proportional liability. On the basis of foreign experience, we can also make efforts from the following four aspects: first, it combines the mature exploration of the degree of comparative fault and the size of the cause force in the traditional theory of tort law and introduces the probability theory at the same time. On the basis of the theory of legal economic analysis, the theory of market share responsibility, the theory of loss of survival opportunity and the quantitative thinking of proportion judgment in the concept of fairness and justice, the basic plan for determining "proportion" is formed; two is the specific field of specific proportion liability; the three is the comprehensive consideration of the restrictive factors applicable to proportional liability; and the four is to improve the liability for "tort liability". The legislative provisions and the evidence system and standard of proof in civil action.
【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】