共同饮酒致共饮人损害赔偿法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-12-10 17:24

【摘要】：借助于北大法宝案例数据库通过调查统计分析,可以得知各地法院在裁判共同饮酒致害案件时存在以下问题:共同饮酒致害案件存在同案不同判情况,在审理共同饮酒致害案件时,法院适用的归责原则不一致,有的法院既适用过错责任原则,又适用公平责任原则,有的法院只适用过错责任原则。本文研究的致害共饮行为针对的是共同的人数应在二人以上(包括本数在内),上不封顶,自斟自饮不是文章的研究范围;当事人仅限定在达成一致意思表示约定共同饮酒的范围内,包括大型聚会、婚宴的来宾参加者,不包括服务人员,助兴演出人员等辅助性人员;共同饮酒致害案件的时间起点是共饮人到达约定地点,时间终点应以共饮人的身体状况作为考察因素;致害原因是由于酒精的作用下,直接或间接的导致共饮人受到损害。致害共饮行为应当承担赔偿责任是因为致害共饮行为的行为性质具有双重性,它既是情谊侵权行为又是事实行为。共同饮酒致害案件的归责原则只有一个就是过错责任原则,公平责任原则在本类案件中不能滥用,以防法院自由裁量权的肆意扩大化,使用公平责任原则的条件是认定当事人应当承担责任的前提下,用来合理的分配当事人承担的赔偿数额的情况。过错责任原则的适用是对共饮人过错的评价,过错的认定是建立在案件事实基础上的,但又不完全是对案件事实的评价;评价共饮人是否具有过错是评价共饮人的致害共饮行为,与损害后果没有关系。利用汉德公式通过将预防成本与预期事故成本相比较,如果共饮人的预防成本小于预期事故发生的成本,则共饮人具有过失,因为共饮人只要稍加防范就可以避免其他共饮人人身财产损害后果的出现。另外,还要考虑到受害共饮人与侵权共饮人之间负担最低注意义务的分配问题,两者的预期社会成本更低者负有最低注意义务,通过比较两者的预防成本,可以得知受害共饮人负有最低注意义务,所以,当共饮致害案件发生时,受害共饮人本身应当承担过失责任,这也是每个人应当对自己的生命负责的体现。共同饮酒致害案件的过错表现形式以共饮侵权行为的行为方式为划分依据,分为其他共饮人通过作为方式导致共饮人发生损害、其他共饮人通过不作为方式导致共饮人发生损害等两种类型。共饮人根据其在共同饮酒过程中的作用和地位不同,承担不同的责任。
[Abstract]:With the help of the Beijing University Fa Po case Database, through the investigation and statistical analysis, we can know that there are the following problems in the adjudication of joint drinking cases by local courts: there are different judgments in the same case in the joint drinking cases. In the case of joint drinking, the principle of imputation applied by the court is inconsistent. Some courts apply the principle of fault liability as well as the principle of fair liability, and some courts only apply the principle of fault liability. This article studies the behavior of drinking together is that the common number should be more than two (including the number of people), not capped, self-refilling and drinking is not the scope of the article; The parties concerned shall limit themselves to the scope of the agreement on joint drinking, including the participants of large gatherings and wedding banquets, not including service personnel, entertainers and other auxiliary personnel; The starting point of the joint drinking injury case is that the co-drinker arrives at the appointed place, and the end of the time should take the body condition of the co-drinker as the investigation factor, and the harmful reason is that the co-drinker is damaged directly or indirectly because of the effect of alcohol. The nature of the behavior is duality, which is not only the tort of friendship but also the act of fact. There is only one principle of imputation in cases of joint drinking that is the principle of fault liability. The principle of fair liability should not be abused in this kind of cases in order to prevent the arbitrary expansion of the discretion of the court. The condition of using the principle of fair liability is to determine that the party should bear the responsibility, and use it to distribute the compensation amount of the party reasonably. The application of the principle of fault liability is the evaluation of the fault of the co-drinkers, and the fault determination is based on the facts of the case, but it is not entirely the evaluation of the facts of the case. Evaluating whether the co-drinker is at fault is the evaluation of the co-drinker 's harmful co-drinking behavior, which has nothing to do with the damage consequence. By comparing the prevention cost with the expected accident cost, if the prevention cost of the co-drinker is less than the expected accident cost, then the co-drinker is negligent. Because co-drinkers can avoid the consequences of personal and property damage as long as a little precaution. Also taking into account the distribution of the burden of the minimum duty of care between the injured co-drinker and the tort co-drinker, who have a minimum duty of care to whom the expected social cost is lower, by comparing the cost of prevention between the two, It can be known that the injured co-drinkers have the lowest duty of care. Therefore, when the co-drinking cases occur, the injured co-drinkers themselves should bear the responsibility for negligence, which is also the embodiment that everyone should be responsible for their own life. The manifestation of fault in joint drinking cases is based on the behavior of co-drinking infringement, which is divided into other co-drinkers who cause damage to co-drinkers by means of co-drinking. Other co-drinkers cause damage to co-drinkers by omission. The co-drinkers bear different responsibilities according to their roles and positions in the process of joint drinking.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条

1 王毓莹,向国慧;论公平责任原则的限制适用 公平责任原则的公平危机及其防范[J];法律适用;2004年09期

2 朱明阳;;对公平责任原则的悖论思考[J];中共成都市委党校学报;2007年02期

3 黄迪;;浅论公平责任原则[J];法制与社会;2007年03期

4 朱杰;;论公平责任原则的存与废[J];政府法制;2008年18期

5 范振远;谢晓琴;;建析公平责任原则之争[J];法制与社会;2009年03期

6 崔建远;袁久强;;关于“公平责任原则”的考察与评论[J];当代法学;1990年03期

7 王新;公平责任原则的适用探析[J];唐山师范学院学报;2001年03期

8 王俊波,陈运生;论侵权行为法的公平责任原则[J];松辽学刊(人文社会科学版);2002年03期

9 邱曼丽;论公平责任原则的适用空间[J];北京交通管理干部学院学报;2002年04期

10 谭晓玉;为什么学校抱怨公平责任原则“不公平”?——谈公平责任原则在学校伤害事故处理中的适用条件[J];中小学管理;2003年10期

中国重要会议论文全文数据库 前1条

1 周天源;雷华;;论“公平责任原则”成为侵权归责原则的“肯定性”[A];当代法学论坛（二０一一年第三辑）[C];2011年

中国重要报纸全文数据库 前10条

1 本报记者 赵衡;适用公平责任原则得符合条件[N];检察日报;2013年

2 马雷军;公平责任原则在学生伤害事故中的适用[N];中国教师报;2003年

3 刘言浩;人身损害赔偿与公平责任原则的适用[N];人民法院报;2001年

4 刘 蕊 郑亚芹;如何正确适用公平责任原则[N];人民法院报;2002年

5 周建华　张俊宏;浅议侵权案件中的 “公平责任原则”之适用[N];江苏法制报;2011年

6 苏家成 余其营 朱玉环;车轮崩出碎石击伤行人责任如何分担[N];人民法院报;2003年

7 李海双;相同案件 为何两种判法[N];中国教师报;2004年

8 范红萍;从“意外损坏”看公平责任原则[N];中国质量报;2004年

9 ;此案适用公平责任原则[N];河北日报;2003年

10 郑和兴　杨建民;一起死亡事故的公平判决[N];闽北日报;2005年

中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前10条

1 张钰;公平责任原则的反思与检讨[D];吉林大学;2011年

2 陶丽莉;公平责任原则的审判实践适用研究[D];兰州大学;2011年

3 汪洋;公平责任原则在我国侵权案中的适用[D];华中科技大学;2013年

4 高落宇;论公平责任原则[D];河北大学;2014年

5 杜以标;公平责任原则研究[D];山东大学;2008年

6 罗志丰;公平责任原则研究[D];厦门大学;2008年

7 罗东波;论公平责任原则[D];湘潭大学;2009年

8 杨飞飞;论公平责任原则的适用条件[D];兰州大学;2011年

9 白荣君;公平责任原则研究[D];西北大学;2007年

10 黄震宇;论公平责任原则在我国医疗侵权纠纷中的合理适用[D];对外经济贸易大学;2007年

，

本文编号：2370947