公共道路妨碍通行物损害责任探析

发布时间：2018-06-16 22:08

本文选题：公共道路 + 责任主体　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国《侵权责任法》第89条将公共道路妨碍通行物损害责任作为一种新型侵权责任形式纳入了物件损害责任,但理论界和实务界对于公共道路妨碍通行物损害责任的责任主体和归责原则却一直争议不断。而且,在司法实践中,由于对道路管理者维护义务缺乏统一明确的判断标准,导致“同案不同判”的现象屡见不鲜,不但影响法律的适用效果,也不利于我国建立职责明确的道路管理体系。本文主要对道路妨碍通行损害责任纠纷的责任主体、归责原则、道路管理者的维护义务判断标准以及其所承担的赔偿责任性质进行探讨。本文由五个部分组成:第一部分,通过北大法宝网公布的三个典型案例引出常见的问题。一是如何确定道路妨碍通行损害责任纠纷的责任主体,尤其是面对不同类型的道路管理机构时,如何准确认定道路管理者;二是法院如何判断道路管理者是否尽到相应的管理养护义务;三是实际堆放、倾倒、遗撒人与道路管理者两类责任主体之间是何种责任关系,公共道路妨碍通行物损害责任应当适用何种归责原则。第二部分,对“公共道路”的范围进行界定。要探讨公共道路妨碍通行物损害责任,首先就要准确界定“公共道路”的范围。根据道路管理的相关法律规定,凡是供不特定公众通行的场所均应当视为“公共道路”。本部分围绕第89条的规范目的,论证水面航道和空中航道也应当涵盖于“公共道路”的范围之中。第三部分,针对第一部分案例提出的问题介绍第89条责任主体的相关问题。围绕法律、行政法规和司法解释的规定,阐述认定公共道路管理者作为责任主体的法律依据,并结合对北大法宝网20件案例的类型化分析,确定了道路妨碍通行损害责任的责任主体包括妨碍物的实际设置人和道路管理者,并在此基础上对道路管理者进行分类讨论,提出了认定适格道路管理者的方法。第四部分,在第三部分责任主体确定的基础上探讨责任主体的责任承担问题,并重点探讨了公共道路妨碍通行物品损害责任的归责原则。针对妨碍通行物损害责任的归责原则一直存在“一元论”和“二元论”的争论,对这两类观点的理由进行分类归纳,着重论述“两元论”的合理性,并在论证道路管理者承担过错推定责任的基础上,从司法实践角度提出道路管理者维护义务的审查标准。第五部分,在前几部分论证的基础上,探讨了道路管理者承担的损害赔偿责任应该是归入国家赔偿还是民事赔偿的问题。一直以来,对于道路管理者承担的管理瑕疵责任的性质认定存在争议,该部分分别从民事责任和国家赔偿责任角度进行论述,得出国家承担道路管理瑕疵责任的可行性。
[Abstract]:Article 89 of our country's Tort liability Law includes the liability for damage to goods in the public road as a new form of tort liability. However, the main body of liability and the principle of imputation of public road obstruction damage liability have always been disputed in the theoretical and practical circles. Moreover, in judicial practice, due to the lack of a unified and clear judgment standard for the maintenance obligations of road managers, the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" is common, which not only affects the effect of the application of the law, Also not conducive to the establishment of a clear responsibility of road management system. This paper mainly discusses the main body of liability, the principle of imputation, the judgment standard of maintenance duty of road manager and the nature of compensation liability. This paper consists of five parts: the first part, through three typical cases published by Beijing University Fa Bao net, leads to common questions. First, how to determine the main body of liability for road obstruction damage, especially in the face of different types of road management agencies, how to accurately identify road managers; Second, how does the court judge whether the road manager has fulfilled the corresponding management and maintenance obligations; and third, what kind of liability relationship is there between the actual stacking, dumping, leaving and the road manager's two kinds of responsibility subjects? What kind of imputation principle should be applied to the liability for obstruction of traffic on public roads. The second part defines the scope of "public road". In order to discuss the liability of public road obstruction, it is necessary to define the scope of public road. According to the relevant laws of road management, all places for public passage should be regarded as "public roads". This part argues that the surface channel and the air channel should also be covered in the scope of "public roads" around the purpose of Article 89. The third part introduces the relevant issues of Article 89 of the main body of responsibility according to the questions raised in the first part of the case. Focusing on the provisions of laws, administrative regulations and judicial interpretations, this paper expounds the legal basis for recognizing public road managers as the subject of responsibility, and analyzes the types of 20 cases of the network of magic treasures of Peking University. In this paper, the main body of liability for road obstruction damage is determined, which includes the actual setters and road managers of obstructions. On the basis of this, the road managers are classified and discussed, and the method of identifying suitable road managers is put forward. In the fourth part, on the basis of the determination of the responsibility subject in the third part, the author probes into the liability assumption of the responsibility subject, and focuses on the principle of imputation of liability for the damage caused by the public road obstructing traffic goods. In view of the controversy of "monism" and "dualism" in the principle of imputation of liability for obstruction of traffic damage, the reasons for these two views are classified and summarized, and the rationality of "dualism" is emphatically discussed. On the basis of demonstrating that road managers should bear the responsibility of presumption of fault, this paper puts forward the examination standard of maintenance duty of road managers from the angle of judicial practice. The fifth part, on the basis of the first part of the argument, discusses whether the liability of the road manager should be classified as state compensation or civil compensation. For a long time, there is a dispute about the nature of the road manager's responsibility for management defects, which is discussed from the angle of civil liability and national liability respectively, and the feasibility of the state assuming the responsibility for defective road management is obtained.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】