被监护人侵权的责任承担

发布时间：2018-06-15 19:13

本文选题：归责原则 + 责任能力　；参考：《中国政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：《侵权责任法》第32条的规定脱胎于《民法通则》第133条。《侵权责任法》出台前就有学者就该条针对被监护人的“财产责任”提出批评意见,并提出了以识别能力为标准的关于责任能力制度的立法建议。但《侵权责任法》第32条的规定沿用了《民法通则》第133条,保留了有财产的被监护人要承担监护责任的规定。实践中,在被监护人侵害他人时,监护人承担极为严苛的无过错责任,即使是《侵权责任法》规定了责任减轻的规则也很少得到适用。而被监护人在有财产的情况下以其财产承担责任,并在财产不足时由监护人承担补充责任的规定也因其适用便利得到立法者和法官的肯定,认为其妥当且便于操作。本文旨在以长期司法实践为基础,通过梳理被监护人侵害他人时,监护人和被监护人承担责任的归责原则,以合理化司法现状,为《侵权责任法》第32条提供解释思路。本文以《侵权责任法》第32条为主要分析对象,分别梳理了该条规定的适用范围、归责原则和条文内部的关系。第一章分析了《侵权责任法》第32条的适用前提,其中对精神病人病发时应当适用《侵权责任法》第32条而不是第33条进行了说明。第二章分析了《侵权责任法》第32条的归责原则。结合第32条的文义并通过对比被监护人侵害他人与一般侵权中被侵害人的利益状态得出了被监护人承担的是过错责任的结论。其中财产标准实为责任能力的标准,而非责任归属的原因。对于监护人责任则只能局限于文义从而得出其采用无过错责任为归责原则的结论。第三章则讨论《侵权责任法》第32条第1款和第2款所规定的监护人责任和被监护人责任的内部关系。监护人责任和被监护人责任都是自己责任;在两者责任都成立的情况下,第2款的规定分配了监护人和被监护人的内部责任。被监护人以其过错在先承担责任,监护人承担自己相应的责任。但是如果被监护人的财产不足以赔偿,则监护人需要补足,以使受害人得到全部的救济。
[Abstract]:The provisions of Article 32 of the Tort liability Law were born out of Article 133 of the General principles of Civil Law. Before the introduction of the Tort liability Law, some scholars criticized the article on the "property liability" of the guardian. It also puts forward the legislative suggestions on the responsibility ability system based on the recognition ability. However, Article 32 of the Tort liability Law follows Article 133 of the General principles of Civil Law, and retains the provision that the guardian with property shall bear the guardianship responsibility. In practice, when the guardian infringes upon others, the guardian bears extremely strict liability without fault, and even the rules of liability abatement stipulated by the Tort liability Law are seldom applied. Under the condition of having property, the guardian assumes the responsibility with his property, and when the property is insufficient, the guardian assumes the supplementary responsibility, which is confirmed by the legislator and the judge because of the convenience of its application, and it is considered appropriate and easy to operate. Based on long-term judicial practice, this paper aims at rationalizing the judicial status quo by combing the principle of liability imputation of the guardian and the guardian when the guardian infringes upon others, thus providing an explanation for Article 32 of the Tort liability Law. Taking Article 32 of Tort liability Law as the main analysis object, this paper combs the scope of application, the principle of imputation and the relationship within the article. The first chapter analyzes the applicable premise of Article 32 of the Tort liability Law, which explains that Article 32 of the Tort liability Law should be applied to the occurrence of mental illness, instead of Article 33. The second chapter analyzes the liability principle of Article 32 of Tort liability Law. Combined with the meaning of Article 32 and by comparing the interests of the aggrieved person with that of the other person in the ordinary infringement, the author draws the conclusion that the guardian bears the responsibility of fault. The property standard is the standard of liability ability, not the reason of responsibility attribution. For guardian liability, it can only be limited to literal meaning and draw the conclusion that no fault liability is the principle of imputation. The third chapter discusses the internal relationship between the guardian's responsibility and the guardian's responsibility as stipulated in Article 32 (1) and (2) of the Tort liability Law. The responsibility of the guardian and the duty of the guardian are both their own; in the case of both, the provisions of paragraph 2 assign the internal responsibility of the guardian and the guardian. The guardian assumes the responsibility for his fault, and the guardian bears his own responsibility. However, if the property of the guardian is not sufficient to compensate, the guardian needs to make up for the victim's full relief.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】