第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人的补充责任研究
发布时间：2018-11-13 08:52
【摘要】：安全保障义务最早形成于古罗马时代,并通过德国法的一般安全注意义务发展过来。最高人民法院2003年颁布的《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》首次规定了安全保障义务人的补充责任。2010年实施的《侵权责任法》总结以往的立法及司法实践经验,首次将安全保障义务制定入法,并且明确规定安全保障义务人承担责任的方式为“相应的”补充责任。本文想要解决的关键问题是如何完善我国第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人补充责任的相关法律制度,以期为安全保障义务人构建一个全方位的保护体系。所以本文拟以第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人补充责任的基本理论、立法及司法实践现状及存在的问题、域外经验借鉴以及完善相关立法建议为总体思路。虽然《侵权责任法》充分肯定和吸收了《人身损害赔偿司法解释》的规定精神,但是法律条文中所体现的内容简单粗陋,对补充责任制度的概念、适用情形、具体的操作并没有进行细致的规定,理论界对此种制度相关内容未达成统一共识,以至于司法实践操作性较差。如何解决立法以及司法实践中存在的问题,本文首先通过对第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人补充责任的基本理论进行概述,着重分析其构成要件。其次主要通过现有的法律规定指出我国第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人补充责任的立法、司法实践现状以及存在的安全保障义务人补充责任的适用范围过窄、安全保障义务的判断标准规定不明确、“相应的”补充责任含义模糊以及安全保障义务人追偿权制度引起的争议等问题。最后,本文通过借鉴域外第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人责任立法的经验,结合我国司法实践,在完善我国第三人介入情形下安全保障义务人补充责任立法的建议方面,提出了要适当扩大安全保障义务人补充责任的适用范围、从法定标准和理性人标准方面明确违反安全保障义务的判断标准、明确安全保障义务人享有追偿权以及追偿权的行使方式等立法建议,从解释论入手解决“相应的”补充责任中相关争议问题,以期更好的完善相关法律制度。
[Abstract]:The duty of security was first formed in ancient Rome and developed through the general duty of safety care in German law. In 2003, the Supreme people's Court promulgated the interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law in the trial of personal injury compensation cases, which for the first time stipulated the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The Tort liability Law implemented in 2010 summarized the past. In legislative and judicial practice, For the first time, the obligation of safety and security is enacted into law, and it is clearly stipulated that the way in which the security obligor bears the responsibility is "corresponding" supplementary responsibility. The key problem that this article wants to solve is how to perfect the relevant legal system of the supplementary liability of the safety guarantee obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention in our country, in order to construct a comprehensive protection system for the safety guarantee obligor. Therefore, this paper intends to take the basic theory, the current situation of legislation and judicial practice and the existing problems, the foreign experience and the relevant legislative suggestions as the overall thinking of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention. Although the Tort liability Law fully affirms and absorbs the stipulated spirit of the Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation, the content embodied in the provisions of the law is simple and crude, which is applicable to the concept and application of the supplementary liability system. The concrete operation has not carried on the detailed stipulation, the theory circle has not reached the unified consensus to this kind of system related content, and the judicial practice operation is poor. How to solve the problems in legislation and judicial practice, this paper firstly summarizes the basic theory of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, and emphatically analyzes its constitutive requirements. Secondly, it points out the legislation of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, the current situation of judicial practice and the narrow scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The judgment standard of the security obligation is not clear, the meaning of "corresponding" supplementary responsibility is vague, and the dispute caused by the system of the right of recourse for the security obligor is also discussed. Finally, this paper, by learning from the experience of the legislation on the liability of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party outside the country, and combining the judicial practice of our country, proposes to perfect the supplementary liability legislation of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party in our country. It is proposed that the scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor should be expanded appropriately, and the judgment standard of violating the obligation of safety and security should be clearly defined from the aspects of the legal standard and the standard of the rational person. In order to perfect the relevant legal system, it is clear that the security obligor has the right of recourse and the way of exercising the right of recourse, so as to solve the relevant disputes in the "corresponding" supplementary liability from the explanation theory.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923
本文编号：2328613
[Abstract]:The duty of security was first formed in ancient Rome and developed through the general duty of safety care in German law. In 2003, the Supreme people's Court promulgated the interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law in the trial of personal injury compensation cases, which for the first time stipulated the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The Tort liability Law implemented in 2010 summarized the past. In legislative and judicial practice, For the first time, the obligation of safety and security is enacted into law, and it is clearly stipulated that the way in which the security obligor bears the responsibility is "corresponding" supplementary responsibility. The key problem that this article wants to solve is how to perfect the relevant legal system of the supplementary liability of the safety guarantee obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention in our country, in order to construct a comprehensive protection system for the safety guarantee obligor. Therefore, this paper intends to take the basic theory, the current situation of legislation and judicial practice and the existing problems, the foreign experience and the relevant legislative suggestions as the overall thinking of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention. Although the Tort liability Law fully affirms and absorbs the stipulated spirit of the Judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation, the content embodied in the provisions of the law is simple and crude, which is applicable to the concept and application of the supplementary liability system. The concrete operation has not carried on the detailed stipulation, the theory circle has not reached the unified consensus to this kind of system related content, and the judicial practice operation is poor. How to solve the problems in legislation and judicial practice, this paper firstly summarizes the basic theory of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, and emphatically analyzes its constitutive requirements. Secondly, it points out the legislation of the supplementary liability of the security obligor under the situation of the third party's intervention, the current situation of judicial practice and the narrow scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor. The judgment standard of the security obligation is not clear, the meaning of "corresponding" supplementary responsibility is vague, and the dispute caused by the system of the right of recourse for the security obligor is also discussed. Finally, this paper, by learning from the experience of the legislation on the liability of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party outside the country, and combining the judicial practice of our country, proposes to perfect the supplementary liability legislation of the security obligor under the situation of the intervention of the third party in our country. It is proposed that the scope of application of the supplementary liability of the security obligor should be expanded appropriately, and the judgment standard of violating the obligation of safety and security should be clearly defined from the aspects of the legal standard and the standard of the rational person. In order to perfect the relevant legal system, it is clear that the security obligor has the right of recourse and the way of exercising the right of recourse, so as to solve the relevant disputes in the "corresponding" supplementary liability from the explanation theory.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 陈彦晶;;第三人侵权时安全保障义务的功能反思[J];哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版);2016年05期
2 李晗;;大数据时代网上银行的安全保障义务研究[J];当代法学;2016年04期
3 高庆艳;;论安全保障义务的有限扩张[J];中山大学研究生学刊(人文社会科学版);2015年04期
4 邱波;;临时工作人员遭受人身损害之责任认定——以侵权责任中的安全保障义务为视角[J];上海政法学院学报(法治论丛);2015年04期
5 李中原;;论违反安全保障义务的补充责任制度[J];中外法学;2014年03期
6 孙维飞;;论安全保障义务人相应的补充责任——以《侵权责任法》第12条和第37条第2款的关系为中心[J];东方法学;2014年03期
7 朱晶晶;;安全保障义务责任的断裂与缝合——第三人介入情形的责任类型分析[J];北方法学;2014年01期
8 邵省;;论高校餐厅等商业经营者的安全保障义务[J];长春理工大学学报(社会科学版);2013年10期
9 杨立新;;中国侵权行为形态与侵权责任形态法律适用指引——中国侵权责任法重述之侵权行为形态与侵权责任形态[J];河南财经政法大学学报;2013年05期
10 杨会;;论安全保障义务人承担补充责任的原因[J];河北法学;2013年07期
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 邹娜;论提供服务者的安全保障义务[D];西南政法大学;2008年
，本文编号：2328613
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2328613.html
