我国无意思联络数人侵权责任问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-19 16:12

【摘要】：随着经济社会的发展,人们的活动范围越来越大,多人的侵权案件越来越多,也越来越复杂,如果一味着只凭借侵权的表现形式把多人侵权都当做共同侵权来处理,直接了违背公平、公正的原则,明确多人侵权的性质是当务之急。在主观上无联系、无故意的数个行为主体,因各自的独立行为偶然相结合,造成了某人在财产或者人身上的损害,针对这一侵权行为,学界称之为无意思联络数人侵权。虽然这种侵权学者在概念上已经达成共识,但是对于其概念和构成要件的研究还是不够深入,造成法律的正确适用困难；特别是在法条中由于对其规定单一,在责任份额的确定上没有做出具体的解释或者规定,促使理论界由于概念不健全引起纷争,直接导致了实务界上法律适用的混乱,如因法官的认识差异出现同一性质的案件得出不同的处理结果。所以,本文针对我国无意思联络数人侵权承担责任上出现的问题,进行剖析并给出建议,并且结合其本质属性整理出一套可行的责任认定规划。对此进行研究不仅能使我国的侵权体系更加完整,最重要的是能够为我国立法及司法实务上提供依据。论文的主体分为四个部分：第一部分,首先列举了无意思联络数人侵权的不同定义,抓住其在概念上的混肴给法律的正确适用造成的困难,指出概念混肴的弊端。结合各类学者对侵权行为的观点,归纳了其概念及认定标准,并且详细阐释了此侵权的构成要件,提出了具有创新性的构成要件理论。在本章节中,笔者为了证明无意思联络数人侵权是确实应该独立存在,将其与共同侵权行为、共同危险行为等做比较；进一步呼吁了无意思联络数人侵权在法律上必须清晰存在的迫切性。第二部分,着重论述了无意思联络数人侵权的类型划分和其与责任认定的关系,笔者认为,对于数人侵权形态现如今侵权法的划分标准往多元化趋势发展,但是无论其划分标准如何改变,最后归结于侵权责任的认定上,因为我们研究侵权行为主要是为了明确由侵害行为而引出的责任承担问题,而应该承担怎样的责任是由侵害形态影响的。受侵权责任法遵循理性原则,首先,把我国侵权责任法对数人侵权形态的划分标准要求与侵权人的承担责任相一致;其次,类型的明确划分使侵权责任的认定更加明确,也使侵害行为人的行为更加平衡、自由,在保护了被害人的权利的基础上,实现了社会的公平、正义。而且在这部分对四种类型标准进行了详细探讨。第三部分,由上文四种类型的讨论,不难看出侵权的类型通过原因力和过错引出的,类型又是责任认定的基础,而侵权法的立法原则是以如何更好的解决侵权责任问题为根本,因此整个侵权行为法的规范条文都是围绕着责任问题来制定,但是对责任认定原则的核心内容不能单独使用原因力因素也不能单独适用过错因素。因此,这部分围绕原因和过错因素将其侵权责任的认定分为四种：按份责任、连带责任、按份责任与连带责任相结合、不真正连带责任。第四部分,从我国立法的演进上论述了无意思联络数人侵权,并通过法律条文来评定立法条文的优缺点。当然对于这些法律规定仍然存在不足之处,笔者对其进行了剖析并提出了个人简单建议,认为要从三个方面进行完善,首先,明确概念。针对“共同”和“分别”理解的差异导致适用混肴,建议要在主观意思上进行整合,提出在法条中引用民法上的主观善意和恶意来对行为和意思的规范,即恶意的就是共同侵权,善意的就是无意思联系侵权。其次,明确侵害人的责任大小标准。建议在法条对人身损害和财物损害进行分类,如果是人身损害,侵害人不分责任大小对受害人承担全部责任；如果是财物损害,从对财物造成损害是主导因素或者辅助因素、从行为人的侵害原因的大小、从侵害行为人的主观过错进行区分责任大小。最后,明确侵害人的内部责任承担方式。建议有份额按照份额追偿,无份额按照平均责任追偿。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and society, the scope of people's activities is becoming wider and wider, and more and more infringement cases of multiple people are becoming more and more complicated. If we treat multiple people's infringement as joint infringement blindly by means of the manifestation of infringement, it will directly violate the principle of fairness and justice, and it is imperative to clarify the nature of multiple people's infringement. Several actors without connection or intent cause damage to one's property or person accidentally because of their respective independent acts. In view of this tort, the academic circles call it unintentional contact infringement. Although this kind of infringement scholars have reached a consensus on the concept, but the study of its concept and constitutive requirements. It is still not deep enough, which makes it difficult to apply the law correctly. Especially, because the provisions of the law are single, there is no specific explanation or provision for the determination of the share of liability, which prompts the theoretical circles to dispute because of the concept is not perfect, and directly leads to the confusion of the application of law in the practical circles, such as because of the differences in judges'understanding. The same nature of the cases come to different results. Therefore, this article in view of our country unintentional liaison several tort liability problems, analysis and give suggestions, and combines its essential attributes to sort out a set of feasible liability determination plan. This study can not only make our country's tort system more complete, the most comprehensive. The main body of the paper is divided into four parts: The first part, first of all, enumerates the different definitions of the tort of unintentional liaison, grasps the difficulties caused by its conceptual confusion to the correct application of the law, and points out the disadvantages of conceptual confusion. In order to prove that the unintentional contact infringement should exist independently, the author compares it with joint infringement and joint dangerous act. The second part focuses on the classification of unintentional liaison infringement and its relationship with liability determination. The author believes that the classification standard of the tort law of unintentional liaison is developing towards diversification, but regardless of the classification standard. Quasi-how to change, finally attributed to the determination of tort liability, because we study the tort is mainly to clarify the responsibility caused by the infringement of the problem, and should bear what kind of liability is affected by the infringement form. Secondly, the clear division of types makes the identification of tort liability more clear, and also makes the behavior of the infringer more balanced and free. On the basis of protecting the rights of the victim, it realizes social fairness and justice. The third part, from the above four types of discussion, it is not difficult to see that the types of infringement by reason and fault, type is the basis of liability determination, and the tort law is based on how to better solve the problem of tort liability for the fundamental legislative principles, so the entire tort law is around the norms of liability. Therefore, this part divides the determination of tort liability into four types: joint liability, joint liability, joint liability and joint liability, which are not really joint liability. Four parts, from the evolution of China's legislation on the unintentional liaison of several infringement, and through the legal provisions to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the legislative provisions. In view of the difference of understanding between "common" and "separate", it is suggested to integrate the subjective meaning. It is proposed that the subjective goodwill and malice in civil law should be used to regulate the act and intention, that is, malicious is joint tort, good faith is unintentional connection tort. Small standards. Suggestions on the classification of personal injury and property damage in the law, if it is personal injury, the infringer regardless of the size of the responsibility to the victim bear full responsibility; if it is property damage, from the damage caused to property is the dominant factor or auxiliary factor, from the size of the infringer's causes, from the infringer's subjective fault Finally, the internal liability of the infringer should be clearly defined. It is suggested that a share should be recovered according to its share and no share should be recovered according to its average liability.
【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】