论经营者安全保障义务的限度
发布时间：2018-12-27 14:18
【摘要】：最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》成功借鉴了德国法上的交易往来安全义务制度,并依此创设了中国法上的安全保障义务。2009年颁布的《侵权责任法》第三十七条,首次以立法形式明确规定了违反安全保障义务的侵权责任,填补了我国关于安全保障义务规定在法律层面上的空白,为受害人主张权利提供了请求权规范基础。但由于侵权责任法、相关司法解释的规定过于原则、抽象以及最高法院指导性案例的缺失,在很大程度上造成了法官在裁决类似案件过程中适用法律的困惑与疑虑。据不完全统计,在笔者搜索的近150起有关违反经营者安全保障义务的案件中,仅仅只有不到三成的案件经营者是完全不承担责任的。而在近七成的案件中经营者都无一例外的要承担违反安全保障义务的责任,更有甚者,在一些裁判文书中虽然法院认定经营者已尽到安全保障义务,但仍然依据经营者属于“强势一方”而要求其承担一部分的责任。如此一来,在最大限度甚至于超限度的保护了相对人利益的同时对于经营者而言极为不公平,经营者安全保障义务应当存在一个合理限度。本文试图通过以危险来源类型为标准,将经营者安全保障义务从横向上区分为危险来源于服务本身、危险来源于经营场所使用物、危险来源于第三人、危险来源于相对人自身以及危险来源于不可抗力五种类型,并结合经营者对不同的相对人类型承担不同的安全保障义务,赋予每一种类型的安全保障义务不同的具体“合理限度”判断标准,并辅之以其他“合理限度”考量因子,以期能够给司法实践处理此类案件提供一些较为有用的参考,解决实务中超限度保护相对人而致不公正的问题,从而能够真正彰显该制度的魅力。
[Abstract]:The Supreme people's Court's interpretation of some issues concerning the law applicable to cases of personal injury compensation has successfully drawn lessons from the system of transaction security obligations in German law. Article 37 of the Tort liability Law, promulgated in 2009, for the first time explicitly stipulates the tort liability for breach of the security obligation in the form of legislation. It fills the gap in the legal level of the security obligation in our country, and provides the normative basis for the victims to claim their rights. However, due to the tort liability law, the provisions of the relevant judicial interpretation are too principled, abstract and the lack of the Supreme Court guiding cases, to a large extent, the judge in the adjudication of similar cases in the application of the law confusion and doubt. According to incomplete statistics, in the nearly 150 cases of violation of operator's obligation of safety and security, only less than 30% of the cases are not responsible at all. In nearly 70% of the cases, the operators have to bear the responsibility of violating the obligations of safety and security without exception. What is more, in some adjudicative documents, although the court found that the operators had fulfilled their obligations of safety and security, But still according to the operator belongs to the "strong party" and require it to assume part of the responsibility. In this way, it is unfair to the operator to protect the interests of the relative party to the maximum extent or even beyond the limit, and there should be a reasonable limit to the duty of safety protection of the operator. Based on the type of dangerous source, this paper attempts to divide the safety and security obligations of the operator horizontally into the danger from the service itself, the hazard from the use of the premises, and the danger from the third person. The danger comes from the opposite party itself and the danger from the five types of force majeure, and combines with the operator to undertake different safety and security obligations to different types of relative party. Giving each type of security obligation a different specific "reasonable limit" criterion, supplemented by other "reasonable limit" considerations, in order to provide some useful references for judicial practice in dealing with such cases, To solve the problem of injustice caused by over-protection of relative person in practice, so as to truly show the charm of the system.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923
[Abstract]:The Supreme people's Court's interpretation of some issues concerning the law applicable to cases of personal injury compensation has successfully drawn lessons from the system of transaction security obligations in German law. Article 37 of the Tort liability Law, promulgated in 2009, for the first time explicitly stipulates the tort liability for breach of the security obligation in the form of legislation. It fills the gap in the legal level of the security obligation in our country, and provides the normative basis for the victims to claim their rights. However, due to the tort liability law, the provisions of the relevant judicial interpretation are too principled, abstract and the lack of the Supreme Court guiding cases, to a large extent, the judge in the adjudication of similar cases in the application of the law confusion and doubt. According to incomplete statistics, in the nearly 150 cases of violation of operator's obligation of safety and security, only less than 30% of the cases are not responsible at all. In nearly 70% of the cases, the operators have to bear the responsibility of violating the obligations of safety and security without exception. What is more, in some adjudicative documents, although the court found that the operators had fulfilled their obligations of safety and security, But still according to the operator belongs to the "strong party" and require it to assume part of the responsibility. In this way, it is unfair to the operator to protect the interests of the relative party to the maximum extent or even beyond the limit, and there should be a reasonable limit to the duty of safety protection of the operator. Based on the type of dangerous source, this paper attempts to divide the safety and security obligations of the operator horizontally into the danger from the service itself, the hazard from the use of the premises, and the danger from the third person. The danger comes from the opposite party itself and the danger from the five types of force majeure, and combines with the operator to undertake different safety and security obligations to different types of relative party. Giving each type of security obligation a different specific "reasonable limit" criterion, supplemented by other "reasonable limit" considerations, in order to provide some useful references for judicial practice in dealing with such cases, To solve the problem of injustice caused by over-protection of relative person in practice, so as to truly show the charm of the system.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【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 王文胜;;论合同法和侵权法在固有利益保护上的分工与协作[J];中国法学;2015年04期
2 郭晖;刘会凤;;第三人侵权下经营者安全保障义务合理限度问题研究[J];社会科学论坛;2012年08期
3 贾邦俊;;《侵权责任法》中安全保障义务“合理限度”的思考——从比较法角度审视[J];绍兴文理学院学报(哲学社会科学);2010年06期
4 廖焕国;;论安全保障义务的制度设计——以《侵权责任法(草案)》第37条为中心的考察[J];求索;2010年04期
5 钱玉文;;论消费者安全保障权的扩张与限制[J];河北法学;2009年08期
6 孙志勇;王长信;常宇通;;经营者安全保障义务的“合理限度范围”探析[J];河北工程大学学报(社会科学版);2009年01期
7 高斐;;论经营者场所安全保障义务的合理边界——从“五月花餐厅案”说开去[J];法制与社会;2008年34期
8 叶i吰，
本文编号：2393198
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2393198.html
