致害人不明的高空抛物侵权责任研究

发布时间：2018-06-12 15:44

本文选题：高空抛物 + 致害　；参考：《青岛大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国《侵权责任法》的出台后,第87条规定高空抛物侵权由可能加害人对受害人承担责任后,法学界对此的争议从未停止。反对这一法条的学者认为该规定增加了无辜建筑物使用人的责任,既不符合公平正义原则,也是对社会成本的一种浪费,是不合理的规定。实践中,对高空抛物侵权案件从87条颁布前的同案不同判,到第87条颁布后社会舆论的质疑。面对致害人不明的高空抛物侵权案件的理论和实践困境,本文将致害人不明的高空抛物侵权问题从立法、司法和理论争议入手,梳理争议焦点,重点讨论抛物与坠物区分与否、可能的建筑物使用人担责与否等问题,拓展救济手段,以期更好解决致害人不明的高空抛物侵权问题。关于高空抛物侵权责任,由于其他国家或地区与我国国情、社情的不同,其立法例、判例要么无此规定,要么无法直接适用,但是,究其根本,法律追求的公正、效率可以体现于德国的社会安全义务理论与英美法系援引的保险制度。这也是我国未来可以借鉴学习的方面。最终得出结论,不赞成由可能加害的建筑物使用人一味担责,认为应该进一步明确其范围,丰富救济受害人的方式,同时,主张严格区分抛物与坠物,通过多种多样的救济方式不断完善我国的高空抛物责任制度。
[Abstract]:After the promulgation of our country's Tort liability Law, Article 87 stipulates that the torturer may be liable to the victim, the controversy in the legal circles has never stopped. The scholars who oppose this article believe that the regulation increases the responsibility of the innocent building users, which is not in accordance with the principle of fairness and justice, but also a waste of social costs, which is unreasonable. In practice, parabolic infringement cases in high altitude have been questioned by public opinion after the promulgation of Article 87, from the different judgments of co-cases before the promulgation of the 87 articles to the doubts of public opinion after the promulgation of Article 87. In the face of the theoretical and practical dilemma of the parabolic tort cases with unknown perpetrators, this paper begins with the legislative, judicial and theoretical disputes about the torts of parabolic torts of unknown perpetrators, combs the focus of the disputes, and focuses on whether to distinguish parabolic from falling objects. In order to solve the problem of torts caused by the unknown torts of parabolic objects at high altitude, the possible problems such as whether the building users are responsible or not, and how to expand the relief methods are developed in order to solve the problem better. As to the tort liability of parabolic at high altitude, due to the differences between other countries or regions and our country's national conditions, the social situation is different. The legislation and case law either have no such provision or can not be directly applied, but, after all, the justice pursued by the law, Efficiency can be reflected in the theory of social security obligation in Germany and the insurance system invoked in Anglo-American law system. This is also the future of our country can learn from the aspects. In the end, it is concluded that it is not in favour of blindly taking the responsibility of the potential users of buildings, and that the scope of the buildings should be further clarified to enrich the ways of providing relief to the victims. At the same time, it is advocated that a strict distinction be made between parabolic objects and falling objects. Through a variety of relief ways to improve our parabolic liability system.
【学位授予单位】：青岛大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】