论高压触电人身损害侵权责任

发布时间：2018-06-22 20:17

本文选题：高压触电 + 人身损害　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：高压触电人身损害侵权责任属于高度危险责任的一种。通过对“中国裁判文书网”检索到的案例进行分析,发现高压触电人身损害案件存在事故原因多元化、侵权主体非单一化、各部门法律规定多样化、法院裁量差异化等现象。由于其自身归责原则的特殊性,导致了实际审判中存在着诸多同案不同判现象,其主要原因是各级法院对法条的理解和适用存在偏差。有些法院在法规存在冲突的时候,没有正确根据法律适用的规则寻求适当有效的法律。首先,《侵权责任法》、《民法通则》、《电力法》均对高压触电人身损害的责任主体进行了界定。当法条出现冲突时,根据“特殊法优于一般法”、“新法优于旧法”等规定,应当适用《侵权责任法》,即高压电经营者应当对损害承担无过错责任。但司法实践中,仍有法院将《民法通则》作为裁判依据,甚至有的法院仍然将已废止的《触电赔偿解释》作为裁判依据;其次,鉴于高度危险责任适用的是无过错责任原则,在高压触电人身损害侵权案件中,只要具备以下三个条件高压电经营者就要承担侵权责任,而无论其是否存在过错:(1)存在高压电作业;(2)有损害事实的发生;(3)高压作业与损害事实之间存在因果关系。在法律有特殊规定的情况下,行为人可以主张免责。根据《侵权责任法》第73条,经营者免责事由包括:(1)不可抗力(2)受害人故意。参考《条文理解与适用》,司法实践中多数法院判定的受害人故意主要包括:(1)受害人利用高压电力设施自杀或自伤行为;(2)受害人从事与高压作业相关的犯罪行为,如盗窃或破坏高压电力设施。但是,危险责任的基本思想在于对“不幸损害”的合理分配,除当事人故意以触电的方式自伤、自杀以外,任何其他原因导致的触电损害都属于“不幸损害”。因此高压触电人身损害侵权案件中,高压电活动经营者的免责事由“受害人故意”应当仅仅包括受害人故意以触电的方式自杀、自伤的行为;最后,由于高压电引起的人身损害案件原因的多元化,往往一个案件中存在多个致害因素。在存在第三人过错的高压触电侵权案件中,第三人的过错是否能作为减轻经营者责任的法定事由,也就是说经营者与第三人之间是怎样的责任承担关系?审判实务中,通常法院根据各个行为对于发生损害结果的原因力大小来划分各侵权主体应承担的责任比例,进而各自承担责任。但《侵权责任法》第三章属于在法律没有特殊规定的情况下适用的一般条款,若《侵权责任法》第九章作了特别的有关减轻责任的规定,便可认定为法律对此已做出特别规定,则应该排除第三章的适用。结合《电力法》以及《电力供应与使用条例》相关条文规定,第三人的过错并不是减轻经营者责任的法定事由,但受害人与承受了损失的经营者均有权利向第三人主张损害赔偿。因此,基于第三人过错造成的损害应判决经营者对第三人的过错承担补充责任。即在第三人赔偿不能的情况下,受害人有权利要求经营者代替第三人赔偿,赔偿后经营者再依法向第三人追偿。综上,通过对案例的汇总及对相关法律的分析,高压触电人身损害案件的侵权责任主体——高压电活动经营者,应当根据对高压电活动的实际控制权区分为:发电企业、输电企业、用电工厂;其次,在确定了高压触电致人损害应适用无过错责任原则的基础上,作为法定免责事由之一的“受害人故意”应仅包括受害人自杀自伤行为,而不包括受害人故意在高度危险活动保护区从事的违法犯罪行为;再次,司法实践中法院认为可以减轻经营者责任的两个事由中,受害人自身过失作为减轻经营者责任的法定事由毋庸置疑,但第三人过错并不能成为绝对减轻经营者责任的法定事由,相反经营者需对第三人的过错承担补充责任;最后,高压触电人身损害赔偿主要包括财产性赔偿和精神损害赔偿。财产性赔偿又包括造成人身损害的一般赔偿、造成残疾的赔偿以及造成死亡的赔偿。精神损害赔偿金额应依据侵权人的主观状态和侵权行为、被侵权人的伤残情况和遭受精神痛苦的情形以及侵权人的经济能力,在0—5万元内酌情确定。
[Abstract]:The tort liability of high voltage electric shock is a kind of highly dangerous liability. Through the analysis of the cases retrieved from the "Chinese referee's document network", it is found that there are various causes of accidents in the cases of high voltage electric shock, the subject of tort is not single, the legal provisions of various departments are diversified, and the discrepancy of the court is discrepant. The particularity of the principle of self imputation leads to the existence of many different cases of the same case in the actual trial. The main reason is that there is a deviation in the understanding and application of the law at all levels. Some courts do not seek appropriate and effective laws according to the rules applicable to the law when there is conflict in the laws. First, < tort law >, < The general principles of the civil law and the electric power law have defined the subject of responsibility for the personal damage of high voltage electric shock. When the law article conflicts, according to the provisions of "special law is superior to the general law", "new law is superior to the old law", the law of tort liability should be applied, that is, the operator of high voltage electricity should bear no fault liability for damage. But in judicial practice, there is still law The court takes the general rules of the civil law as the basis of the referee, and even some courts still use the abolished interpretation of "compensation for electric shock" as the basis of the referee; secondly, in view of the principle of no fault liability applicable to high risk liability, in the case of tort of high voltage electric shock, the operators of high voltage electricity shall bear the liability for infringement in the case of the following three conditions. No matter whether or not it has fault: (1) there is high voltage electricity operation; (2) the occurrence of damage fact; (3) there is a causal relationship between the high pressure operation and the fact of damage. In the case of special law, the perpetrator may claim exemption. According to the tort liability law seventy-third, the operator's disclaimer includes: (1) force majeure (2) the victim intentionally. Referring to the understanding and application of provisions, the victims of most courts in judicial practice mainly include: (1) the victims use high voltage power facilities to commit suicide or self injury; (2) the victims engage in crimes related to high pressure operations, such as theft or destruction of high voltage power facilities. However, the basic idea of dangerous liability lies in the "unfortunate loss". The rational distribution of the harm ", except the parties intentionally hurt themselves by means of electric shock, and any other cause of electric shock damage is" unfortunate damage ". In the end, because of the diversification of the cause of personal injury caused by high voltage electricity, there are often many factors in a case. In the case of the third person's fault, whether the third person's fault can be used as a legal cause to mitigate the responsibility of the operator, that is to say, the operator and the third person. What is the relationship between responsibility and responsibility? In the trial practice, the court usually divides the liability proportion of the infringers according to the size of the cause of the damage. But the third chapter of the tort liability law belongs to the general clause in the case where the law does not have special provisions, if < The ninth chapter of the tort liability law, which has made special provisions concerning the reduction of liability, may be found that the law has made a special provision for this, and the application of the third chapter should be excluded. The fault of the third party is not a legal cause to mitigate the responsibility of the operator, but the victim is not the legal cause of reducing the liability of the operator. The operator who has suffered the loss has the right to claim damages to the third party. Therefore, the damage caused by the third party's fault should be decided by the operator to take the supplementary responsibility for the fault of the third party. That is, the victim has the right to claim the compensation for the third party by the operator in the case of third compensation, and the reparation operator will then reclaim it in accordance with the law. Third people recourse. To sum up, through the summary of the cases and the analysis of relevant laws, the main body of tort liability of high voltage electric shock cases, the operator of high voltage electric activity, should be divided into power enterprises, transmission enterprises and electrical plants according to the actual control right of high voltage power activities. Secondly, the damage caused by high voltage electric shock is determined. On the basis of the principle of no fault liability, as one of the legal exemptions, "the victim intentional" should only include the victim's suicide self injury, but not the offense committed by the victim in the highly dangerous activity protection area. Again, the court of law believes that the two reasons for reducing the liability of the operator in the judicial practice are considered. In addition, the victim's own negligence is no doubt as the legal cause of reducing the responsibility of the operator, but the third party's fault can not be the legal cause that absolutely mitigates the responsibility of the operator. On the contrary, the operator needs to take the supplementary responsibility for the fault of the third party. Finally, the compensation for the personal damage of the high voltage electric shock includes the property compensation and the compensation for the mental damage. Property compensation includes general compensation for personal injury, compensation for disability and compensation for death. The amount of compensation for mental damage should be determined on the basis of the subjective state and tort of the infringer, the situation of the tortfeasor, the situation of suffering from the tortfeasor and the economic ability of the tortfeasor, as well as the economic ability of the tortfeasor, within 0 to 50 thousand yuan.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923;D922.181

【参考文献】