《侵权责任法》第49条的解释论研读——主体分离下的道路交通事故侵权责任论纲

发布时间：2018-08-24 17:06

【摘要】：《侵权责任法》第49条解决主体分离下的道路交通事故侵权责任的认定问题,该条采纳"狭义二元论"的立法思想,运行支配仅限于驾驶,运行利益以机动车运行所生之直接利益为限,非包含间接利益在内,不同于德日的"广义二元论"。该条适用标准有二:主体分离和使用人为己驾驶,其调整范围具体情形以二者为依据得以同质性扩充,包括但不限于转租、转借、保管、质押、留置、侵占、承包和试驾等。该条数人责任(使用人承担自己责任,所有人承担过错责任)以所有人过错为前提,其过错以明知或应知机动车不适驾和驾驶人不适格中的"禁止驾驶类情形"为限,非含"方便管理类情形"在内。擅自驾驶中所有人过错以其是否对机动车尽到妥善监管义务为判断标准。
[Abstract]:Article 49 of the Tort liability Law solves the problem of the identification of tort liability for road traffic accidents under the separation of subjects. This article adopts the legislative idea of "narrow dualism", and its operation control is limited to driving. The operating benefits are limited to the direct interests of motor vehicles, not including indirect interests, and are different from the "generalized dualism" of Germany and Japan. There are two applicable standards for this article: the main body is separated and the user is driven by himself, and the specific scope of adjustment can be expanded in the same quality on the basis of both, including, but not limited to, sublease, loan, custody, pledge, lien, encroachment, contract and test drive, and so on. The liability of several persons (the user bears his own liability and the owner is liable for fault) is based on the fault of the owner, whose fault is limited to the "prohibited driving category" in the case of knowing or should know that the motor vehicle is unfit to drive and the driver is unfit, Does not include "convenient management case". The fault of the owner in driving without authorization is judged by whether he has fulfilled the duty of proper supervision of the motor vehicle.
【作者单位】：吉林大学法学院;
【基金】：吉林大学青年学术领袖培育计划(2012FRLX15);吉林大学研究生创新基金资助项目(451160304272)
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】