肖某诉乔某喂养流浪动物损害赔偿案评析

发布时间：2018-01-27 23:29

本文关键词： 侵权行为流浪动物责任主体一般侵权责任免责事由　出处：《湖南大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：流浪动物引发的诸多问题给社会造成重大影响,越来越受到各国的重视。乔某喂养流浪动物损害赔偿责任纠纷一案是一起典型的流浪动物伤人案件。案件涉及的争议焦点在于动物侵权责任主体如何认定、被告乔某的侵权责任如何认定、原告肖某是否存在过错。《侵权责任法》规定动物侵权责任的主体是饲养人或管理人,但对两者的界定没有统一的标准。特别是在流浪动物致人损害案件中,由于流浪动物的不稳定、流动性等原因,很难确定责任主体。在本案中,对于被告乔某是否是流浪猫饲养人或管理人的问题,除了区分喂养行为与饲养行为的不同,还可以依据两项标准,即为自己利益而使用动物和对动物有决定权来判断。被告乔某仅仅只是喂养,对流浪猫的喂养并非是为了自己的利益,而且对流浪猫没有任何的管束和控制,故被告乔某并不是流浪动物的饲养人或管理人。在认定被告乔某责任的过程中,应从一般侵权责任角度进行分析。本案中,被告乔某出于爱心喂养流浪猫并不存在损害他人民事权益的过错,而且这一喂养行为也没有违反法律规定的义务或侵害其他法益,更不可能说喂养行为与原告肖某所受损害之间存在因果关系。因此,被告乔某不构成一般侵权,不需要承担侵权责任。本案需要承担责任的主体是小区物业服务公司。依据《物业管理条例》和物业服务合同,小区物业服务公司具有保障业主人身、财产安全的义务。但是,在本案中,小区物业服务公司未能采取措施管理流浪猫,以致出现业主遭受损害的事实。在免责事由方面,原告肖某存在过错。一方面,肖某的狗是大型犬,外出时没有拴狗链。另一方面,在制止猫狗的打斗中,原告肖某不当行为,踢了流浪猫,于是引发了流浪猫的攻击。原告并不存在希望或放任损害发生的故意,而是未尽到应有义务的过失。因此,本案存在受害人过失的减轻责任事由,应当相应地减轻责任人的责任。
[Abstract]:Many problems caused by stray animals have a great impact on society. More and more attention has been paid to the various countries. Qiao Mou's case of compensation for damage caused by feeding stray animals is a typical case of stray animals wounding. The focus of the dispute is how to identify the subject of animal tort liability. The defendant Qiao how to determine the tort liability, the plaintiff Xiao Mou whether there is fault. "Tort liability Law" stipulates that the main body of animal tort liability is the breeders or managers. However, there is no uniform standard for the definition of the two. Especially in the case of human damage caused by stray animals, it is difficult to determine the subject of responsibility because of the instability and mobility of stray animals. Whether the defendant Qiao is a stray cat keeper or manager, in addition to the difference between feeding behavior and feeding behavior, can also be based on two criteria. That is, the use of animals for their own interests and the right to decide on animals. The defendant Qiaomou only feeding, the feeding of stray cats is not for their own interests, and there is no control and control over stray cats. Therefore the defendant Qiao is not the keeper or manager of stray animals. In the process of determining the responsibility of the defendant Qiao should be analyzed from the perspective of general tort liability. In this case. The defendant, Qiao Mou, did not have the fault of harming the civil rights and interests of others to feed stray cats out of love, and this feeding behavior did not violate the obligations of the law or infringe on other legal interests. It is impossible to say that there is a causal relationship between the feeding behavior and the damage suffered by the plaintiff Xiao. Therefore, the defendant Qiao Mou does not constitute a general infringement. Do not need to assume tort liability. The subject of this case is the residential property service company. According to the property Management regulations and property service contract, the residential property service company has the protection of the owner person. The obligation of property safety. However, in this case, the residential property service company failed to take measures to manage stray cats, resulting in the fact that the owner suffered damage. On the one hand, Xiao's dog was a large dog, and he was not chained when he went out. On the other hand, in the fight against cats and dogs, the plaintiff Xiao misbehaved and kicked the stray cat. Thus triggered the attack of stray cats. The plaintiff did not expect or allow the damage to occur intentionally, but failed to fulfill its due obligations. Therefore, there is a victim's fault mitigation of liability. The responsibility of the responsible person shall be reduced accordingly.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.1;D920.5

【相似文献】