公共场所管理人的安全保障义务研究

发布时间：2018-06-07 08:00

本文选题：公共场所管理人 + 安全保障义务　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：安全是人类共同的追求,人的一切生存生产活动都离不开安全的社会大环境。先进的社会生产力带来了物质文明和社会财富的巨大进步的同时,也威胁着人们的人身利益和财产利益。近年来,涉及公共场所的安全事故的纠纷在司法实践中大量涌现。安全保障义务制度应运而生。我国的安全保障义务制度,最早以文件形式出现是在《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第6条;最早以法律形式出现是在《侵权责任法》第37条。法律规定的出现弥补了我国关于安全保障义务制度的空白,使得法院在处理此类案件时有法可依。但是由于我国的这项制度发展时间短,不够成熟,规定不灵活,在司法实践中也存在很多问题,比如A是一个小偷,一日到B经营的百货超市盗窃,在盗窃货架上商品的过程中,由于B的保洁人员没有及时将地上的水擦除,A摔伤,此时B是否应该赔偿A受到的损失,B应当保障进入其经营场所进行购物的人员的安全,这是没有疑问的,但是A是盗窃者,进入B的场所是为了损害B的利益,在这种情况下B是否应当保障A的安全呢?在司法实务中,不同的法院就存在不同的观点,有的法院认为不应当赔偿,安全保障义务设立的初衷是风险与收益相一致的理论,盗窃者进入B的场所,不可能给B带来收益或者潜在的收益,只会损害B的利益,因此不应该对B苛以保障A安全的责任;有的法院则认为应当赔偿,因为在B的场所内的水渍,人只要走过就会摔倒,只是A比较不幸地走过然后摔倒了,水渍的存在对其他消费者的来说也是一种威胁,清除水渍属于B提供的安全保障的内容,既然B没有履行自己的义务,当然应当承担侵权责任,赔偿A受到的损失;又如我国侵权法对第三人侵权与义务人未尽合理安全保障义务,共同导致相对人受损的情况下,只要求义务主体承担“相应的补充责任”,这样的规定给法院适用相关法律造成一定的困难,因为“相应的”要求法院按照第三人和公共场所的管理人各自的过错大小承担责任,但是在很多的案件中,两者的行为都是造成最后损害结果的必备的要素,难以对过错大小进行确定,法院在判决中常常在各自承担百分之五十责任的基础上进行加减;再如B是一个高档的物业小区,带有锻炼设施,在B小区旁有一个普通的物业小区A小区,A小区没有锻炼的设施,无法满足小区居民锻炼的需要,于是A小区的居民就常常跑到B小区场所内进行锻炼,尽管B小区“不允许外来人员随意进入,进出小区要进行登记”,但是由于难以判断进入者是否为外来人员,而最终没有进行登记,一日A小区的居民C在B小区锻炼的过程中,由于B小区锻炼器械的老化而摔伤,C要求B对自己承担赔偿责任,因为B未履行安全保障义务,在这则案例中存在的争议焦点是B小区是否为公共场所,因为“公共场所”的最大特点就是进入的主体的不特定性,如果B小区是公共场所,那么C就有权进入,B就要对C的安全提供保障,如果B小区不是公共场所,那么C就是无权进入的人员,而多数学者受到英美法系相关理论的影响,认为在私人领域,受邀请进入者才会受到保护,获邀请者没有受到保护的权利。对于这个争议焦点,有的法院认为,公共场所的一个最主要的特征是“进入主体的不特定性”,尽管B小区有禁止外来人员进入的告示,但是在实际过程中,B小区并没有对进入的人员加以过多的限制,没有按照告示的规定,对本小区以外的人员进入作出限制,外来人员仍然可以“无障碍进入”,因此B小区应当被认定为公共场所,所以C是有权进入,B就应当为其提供保护;有的法院则认为,B尽管是公共场所,但是开放的范围仅仅是小区的居民,对于C属于好意施惠,如果要求B承担对C的赔偿责任,将会使以后这些有锻炼设施的小区,不再愿意给小区以外的居民提供场所,最终居民锻炼的要求就不能得到充分的满足,就会更加激化居民锻炼需求与锻炼设施设备不足的矛盾;有的法院认为,既然B小区张贴了告示,“外来人员不得进入”,那么B小区就不是公共场所,C就是未获邀请的无权进入者,对于这样的人B不承担赔偿责任。为了使安全保障义务制度得到发展,本文将以《侵权责任法》第37条为中心,着重对“公共场所管理人”,这样一个特殊主体的安全保障义务进行研究。本文分为五个部分,每个部分将分别详细探讨,关于公共场所管理人安全保障义务的主体、界定标准、内容、违反安全保障义务的侵权责任的承担等基本问题。文章的第一部分是导论,导论部分引入了这篇文章将要研究的问题、资料来源、研究的方法、论文的价值和意义、文章的主要创新点和不足之处。笔者通过之前在法院实习期间,从资深法官处了解到的情况和研读国内法院的经典案例的研读,发现目前我国的安全保障制度就“公共场所管理人”部分存在五大问题,具体包括:公共场所、管理人的含义,不法进入者是否需要被提供保护,安全保障义务具体要求有哪些,管理人直接侵权适用一般过错原则的归责原则是否合理,以及第三人介入的侵权案件中,管理人以相应的补充责任的责任承担方式是否合理,同时,对问题的原因进行了分析。只有站在巨人的肩膀上,才会看得更高、看得更远,因此在文章中借鉴和分析了多位法学前辈的有益理论,比如王利明、杨立新、冯·巴尔。为了方便之后的论述,我在导论部分进行了文献的综述,就笔者提出的五个的问题,对当前学界的观点进行了归纳和分析;第一章的主要内容是关于安全保障义务的综述。考虑到我国安全保障义务制度的发展起步较晚,又是在借鉴大陆法系国家(主要是德国和日本)和英美法系国家相关理论的基础上确立和发展起来的,因此需要追本溯源,探讨大陆法系国家(主要是德国和日本)和英美法系国家在民法中关于这项制度的发展模式和内容规定,为我国安全保障义务制度的完善提供一些的思路。因此在这一章中,笔者会详细介绍两大法系相关制度的发展历程、制度规定以及著名案例;第二章的主要内容是对“公共场所管理人”以及安全保障义务的相对人进行界定。首先笔者通过分析德国学者的观点,提出了界定安全保障义务主体的一般标准,即对危险的控制力标准和邻近关系标准;其次我分别解读公共场所、管理人的含义,并对目前司法实践中存在争议的学校和物业小区,是否属于《侵权法》第37条所称的公共场所,提出自己的观点并说明了理由;最后,对该制度的相对人,笔者分情况进行了讨论,主要分为两类,一类是有权进入,即直接对象和潜在对象,另一类是无权进入,即好意施惠的对象和不法进入者,并就无权进入者是否应该得到管理人的保护进行探讨说明;第三章的主要内容是关于公共场所管理人的安全保障义务的具体内容,即管理人需要采取怎样的措施,才被认为是已经妥善履行了该项义务。在本章的前半部分我综合学者的观点和自己的理解,总结出界定安全保障义务内容的一般标准,即可预见标准和成本收益标准,并对这两个标准的内容和具体的适用方法进行了阐述。尽管对于安全保障义务的具体内容,学界认为要结合个案,按照“具体情况具体对待”的原则进行,但是我认为有一些义务内容是基础性的,只要是该制度的义务人就要履行,因此,在本章的后半部分,我对这些义务内容,分为硬件方面和软件方面作了归纳整理,并辅之以案例支撑;第四章的主要内容是关于义务主体责任承担的问题。对这个问题笔者论述分为两部分,一部分是没有第三介入时,单纯因为管理人违反安全保障义务,造成他人损害的情形,在这一部分中,论述的重点在于,采用一般过错责任原则而非过错推定责任原则的合理性,以及适用德国法上“推定证明”理论的必要性,另一部分是关于有第三人介入的情形下,管理人未尽义务与第三人侵权行为结合共同造成相对人损失的情形,此处我会先介绍学界对这个问题的四种主流观点,之后着重讨论我国《侵权责任法》第37条关于“相应的补充责任”规定存在的问题,以及我建议采取“补充责任”的理由。文章的最后一部分是结语。这部分主要内容是对上文论述的结论性总结,回答了导论中提出的问题,介绍了本文的特色和创新点。
[Abstract]:Security is the common pursuit of human beings. All human survival and production activities can not be separated from a safe social environment. Advanced social productivity has brought about the great progress of material civilization and social wealth, as well as the personal interests and property interests of people. In recent years, the dispute involving public places in the judicial practice is in judicial practice. The safety guarantee obligation system emerges as the times require. Our country's security obligation system is first appeared in the form of documents in the interpretation of the sixth articles about the application of law to the cases of personal injury compensation. The first appearance in the legal form is the law of tort, thirty-seventh. The appearance of the law has made up for China's customs. The blank of the security obligation system makes the court in the process of dealing with such cases. But because of the short development time, not mature and inflexible, there are also many problems in the judicial practice, such as A is a thief, a day to the B department store supermarket theft, the process of stealing goods on the shelf. In the case of B's cleaners who have not erased the water on the ground in time, A falls, and whether B should compensate for the loss of A at this time, B should guarantee the safety of the people who enter the shopping site, this is no doubt, but A is a thief, and the place for B is to harm B's interests. In this case, B should guarantee A. In judicial practice, in judicial practice, different courts have different views, some courts think that no compensation should be made. The original intention of setting up security obligation is the theory that risk and income are consistent. The burgler enters the B place, it is impossible to bring B income or potential income, and will only harm the interests of B, so it should not be harsh to B. The responsibility to ensure A safety; some courts think that it should be compensated, because in the place of B water stains, people just walk through the fall, only A unfortunately walked and fell down, the presence of water stains is also a threat to other consumers, the removal of water stains belongs to the content of the security provided by the B, since B did not perform its own The obligation, of course, should bear the liability for tort, compensate for the loss of A, and, in the case of the infringement of the tort law of the third party and the obligation of the obligor, which jointly lead to the damage to the relative person, only the subject of the obligation is required to bear the "corresponding supplementary liability", which will cause the court to apply the relevant laws to a certain extent. It is difficult, because "corresponding" requires the court to take responsibility according to the fault size of the third person and the manager of the public place, but in many cases, the behavior of the two is a necessary element for the result of the final damage. It is difficult to determine the size of the fault. The law court is often responsible for the fifty percent responsibility in the judgment. Add and subtract on the basis of appointment; again, B is a high-end property community, with exercise facilities, there is an ordinary property community A community near the B District, A community does not exercise facilities, can not meet the needs of the community residents exercise, so the residents of the A community often run to the B residential area for exercise, although the B community is "not allowed to go outside." The people will enter freely, entering and leaving the district to register, but because it is difficult to judge whether the entry person is a foreign person or not, and eventually no registration is carried out. In the course of a day of A residents' C in the process of B District exercise, because of the aging of the exercise instruments in the B District, C requires B to bear the liability for themselves, because B has not fulfilled the security guarantee. In this case, the focus of the dispute is whether the B community is a public place, because the biggest feature of the "public place" is the unspecific nature of the main body. If the B community is a public place, then the C will have the right to enter, and the B will provide security for the security of C. If the B community is not a public place, then C is the person of no right to enter. While many mathematicians are affected by the theory of Anglo American law, it is believed that in the private sector, the inviter will be protected and the inviter is not protected. For the focus of the dispute, some courts believe that one of the most important features of the public place is "the unspecific nature of entering the main body", although the B community is forbidden. In the actual process, in the actual process, the B community has not imposed too many restrictions on the people entering, and does not restrict the entry of people outside the community according to the provisions of the notice, and the foreign personnel can still be "accessible", so the B area should be recognized as a public place, so C is entitled to access, B should provide protection for it; some courts think that, although B is a public place, the scope of the opening is only the residents of the community. For the benefit of C, if B is required to take responsibility for the compensation for C, the future community will not be willing to provide a place for the residents outside the community, and the final residents will exercise. The requirement can not be fully satisfied, and it will intensify the contradiction between the residents' exercise demand and the insufficient equipment of the exercise facilities; some courts believe that since the B community posted the notice, "the foreign personnel must not enter", then the B community is not a public place, the C is the unauthorized entry person invited, and no compensation for such a person, B. Responsibility. In order to develop the safety guarantee obligation system, this article will focus on the thirty-seventh article of the tort liability law, focusing on the "administrator of the public places", so as to study the security obligation of a special subject. This article is divided into five parts. Each part will discuss in detail the safety obligations of the managers in public places. The first part of the article is introduction, the introduction part introduces the problems that this article will study, the source of the information, the method of research, the value and significance of the paper, the main innovation and inadequacies of the chapter. The author passed the method before the author. During the internship, from the study of the experience of the senior judges and the study of the classic cases of the domestic courts, it is found that there are five major problems in the current security system of the "public place manager", including the meaning of the public places, the managers, the need for protection and the obligation of security. What are the specific requirements, the rational principle of the direct tort applicable to the general fault principle, and the rationality of the third party's involvement in the tort cases, the manager's responsibility for the corresponding supplementary liability is reasonable, and the cause of the problem is analyzed. Only on the shoulders of the giant will it be seen more and more visible. Further, therefore, in the article, we draw lessons from and analyze the beneficial theories of many legal predecessors, such as Wang Liming, Yang Lixin, von Barr. For the convenience after the discussion, I made a summary of the literature in the introduction part, summed up and analyzed the views of the current academic circles on the five questions put forward by the author; the main content of the first chapter is the closing of the chapter. Taking into account that the development of the security obligation system in China started relatively late and was established and developed on the basis of the related theories of continental law countries (mainly Germany and Japan) and the common law countries, it is necessary to trace the origin and explore the countries of the civil law system (mainly Germany and Japan). The development mode and content of this system in civil law countries provide some ideas for the improvement of our country's security obligation system. In this chapter, the author will introduce the development course of the two legal system related systems, the regulations and the famous cases; the main content of the second chapter is the "public field". The author, as well as the relative of the security obligation, defines the relative people of the security obligations. First, through the analysis of the views of the German scholars, the author puts forward the general standards for the definition of the subject of security obligations, namely, the standard of risk control and the standard of adjacent relations; secondly, I interpret the meaning of the public field, the manager and the current judicial practice. Whether the controversial schools and property communities belong to the "tort law > thirty-seventh" public places, put forward their own views and explain reasons. Finally, the author divides the situation into two categories: the right entry, the direct and the potential, the other is the unauthorized entry, that is, the good intention. The main content of the third chapter is about the specific content of the security obligation of the manager of the public places, that is, what measures should be taken by the manager, so that it is considered to have properly fulfilled the obligation in this chapter. The first half of my comprehensive scholar's views and understanding, summed up the general standards for the definition of security obligations, the standards of foresight and the standard of cost and benefit, and the content of the two standards and the specific methods of application. Although the specific content of the security obligations, the academic community thinks that the combination of cases, According to the principle of "specific situation and specific treatment", but I think that some obligations are basic, as long as the obligor of the system is required to perform. Therefore, in the second half of this chapter, I have summarized the contents of these obligations into hardware and software, supplemented by case support; the main part of the fourth chapter. The content is about the responsibility of the responsibility of the subject of obligation. The author of this question is divided into two parts, part of which is that there is no third intervention, simply because the manager violates the security obligation and causes other people's damage. In this part, the focus of the discussion is to adopt the general fault liability principle rather than the fault presumption responsibility original. The reasonableness of the rule and the necessity of applying the theory of "presumption of proof" on the German law, and the other part of the case where the third party is involved, and the combination of the undone obligations of the manager and the infringement of the third party, causes the loss of relative persons together. Here I will first introduce the four mainstream viewpoints of the academic circle to the question and then discuss the discussion. The thirty-seventh article on "the corresponding supplementary liability" in China's tort liability law and the reasons for my suggestion to take "supplementary responsibility". The last part of the article is the conclusion. The main content is the concluding summary of the above discussion, the questions put forward in the introduction, and the characteristics and innovation points of this article.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】