论侵权法上的不真正连带责任

发布时间：2018-01-15 01:32

本文关键词：论侵权法上的不真正连带责任　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：民法理论上的不真正连带责任或者说不真正连带债务一词反映的是尽管多个债务人面对债权人均有履行债务之义务,但各债务人中却有并不实际承担最终责任的责任人。在侵权法上,不真正连带责任的这一特性承载了更重要的责任分配之公平理念。不真正连带责任的产生,更多的是源于社会现实需要,它是对司法实务中许多与连带责任或按份责任相似、但又不能完全套用其规则的特殊案型所提炼出的概念。在此基础上,面对国内外学者对不真正连带责任概念的纷繁见解与司法实务对日渐增加的不真正连带责任侵权案件如何处理的争议,本文所要解决的就是在侵权法领域应怎样理解不真正连带责任的概念、其构成如何等等,以此为指导解决有关典型、重要案例的责任分配问题,并为司法实务中应采取何种诉讼模式、裁判文书如何表述等提供参考。在侵权法的特殊语境下,不真正连带责任制度的独特地位表现于:它不只反映了当无意思联络的数人对同一损害结果都存在过错时,一侵权人的故意可免除过失侵权人的内部责任,或者当一个按照法律规定须承担替代责任、危险责任的侵权人实际上并不存在过错时,另一个侵权人的过错可免除其内部责任;还反映了侵权法既重视维护受害人的利益、便利其受侵害权利的救济,又不罔顾过错责任的基本原则,使不具备相当过错的责任人无须承担最终责任。在侵权法的语境下,“共同原因说”主张的作为不真正连带责任产生原因的“不同的法律关系、不同的请求权基础”等等都简化为一种侵权损害赔偿法律关系,其具体的表现形式是无意思联络的数个侵权人分别实施侵权行为造成同一损害。同时,“目的共同说”强调的各责任人履行义务的不同目的也变为对同一受害人同一损害的赔偿。此时,侵权法上的不真正连带责任概念之界定,应落脚在有须承担最终责任的终局责任人、对终局责任人有内部的全额追偿权等各责任人责任位阶的不同层次性这一要点上。而最终责任的不同层次性是基于各责任人间过错的不同层次性。在此基础上,按照数个侵权责任人各自过错的标准来探讨各责任人均有过错和非终局责任人无过错这两类情形,便可得出各种特殊侵权行为类型下成立与不成立不真正连带责任的大致思路。而在确立不真正连带责任产生之后,下一步便要探讨在受害人选择以诉讼救济时诉之提起、审理、裁判应如何进行的问题。这对司法实务中如何正确适用不真正连带责任意义重大。本文分三个部分来论证不真正连带责任在侵权法上的特殊性,即侵权法上不真正连带责任的概念、两类情形下的不真正连带责任与不真正连带责任案件的司法处理。第一部分:侵权法上不真正连带责任的概念。主要内容包括不真正连带责任的学说和概念,以及侵权法上不真正连带责任的构成。德国法上关于不真正连带责任的学说有很多,且各有利弊。但在侵权法的特定语境下探讨不真正连带责任,义务的不同层次性理论最为合适。在此基础上,所谓侵权法上的不真正连带责任,是指多个责任人就同一损害后果分别承担全部或部分的赔偿责任,受害人可在总的赔偿数额范围内请求任一或几个责任人进行赔偿,非终局的侵权责任人在对受害人赔偿后可向终局责任人追偿全部的侵权责任承担方式。定义上各责任人承担责任的不同层次性反映在责任构成中表现为:一方面,数个责任人对外就同一损害均向受害人负损害赔偿义务,但损害赔偿的数额不一定完全相等;另一方面,各责任人内部存在全有或全无的责任承担关系,终局责任人最终承担全部份额,非终局责任人在赔偿后可以全额追偿。而产生追偿权的依据,是各责任人间“故意—过失”或“有过错—无过错”的过错相对性结构,类推适用《侵权责任法》第26、27条之规定所得。第二部分:两类情形下的不真正连带责任。主要内容是根据非终局责任人是否存在过错来分别探讨侵权法上一些特殊侵权行为类型在这两种情形下是否构成或者不构成不真正连带责任。对侵权法上“相应的补充责任”、“相应的赔偿责任”等,由于其并不影响各责任人在内部关系上成立全有或全无的责任承担关系,故有成立不真正连带责任的可能。而真正决定补充责任人等对内和对外责任范围并进而影响不同责任类型之成立的,是其与实际责任人之间的过错结构。其中能够成立不真正连带责任的过错结构表现为实际责任人故意、补充责任人等过失,只是在类似机动车交通事故责任等案件中,对侵权人过错的判断较为复杂,须区分不同情况进行认定。而对法律规定承担无过错责任的当事人实际上不具有过错,且存在其他真正有过错的侵权行为人时,同样可成立不真正连带责任。这类情形有很多,包括第三人侵害雇员时无过错的雇主责任、建筑物倒塌是因其他责任人的过错所致时建设单位和施工单位的责任等等。第三部分:不真正连带责任案件的司法处理。主要围绕不真正连带责任案件的诉讼模式、不真正连带责任案件裁判时的考量因素,以及有关裁判文书的表述等问题展开论述,分析侵权法上的不真正连带责任在司法救济程序中所具有的特殊性。从本文的介绍可以看出,侵权法上不真正连带责任在民事诉讼中的运用遭遇实体法与诉讼法间的强烈分歧。实体法认为不真正连带责任侵权案件的受害人可以任意选择其中一个或几个责任人分别或合并提起诉讼,在起诉一人获得判决支持但未能执行时还能再起诉另一人;而诉讼法则坚持受害人只能择一而诉或构成必要共同诉讼的观点。对此,诉的合并理论能较好地汲取两种理论观点的长处,它不仅包括普通共同诉讼的形式,还包括第三人参加之诉。经合并审理后作出一份裁判文书并同时对各责任人的外部赔偿义务和内部追偿关系作出认定,能有效避免受害人因多份判决双重受偿而获得不当得利。而当受害人仅起诉终局责任人一人、虽获判决支持但因被告下落不明等原因而没有得到实际赔偿时,其有权向另一责任人再行起诉,但必须有终结执行裁定书、宣告破产的裁定书、宣告失踪或宣告死亡的判决书等证明被执行人无力赔偿的有效法律文书,法院才能在审理时对前一判决中未获执行的部分作出认定,从而避免多重受偿。综上所述,本文是运用过失相抵的基本原理来解释侵权法上的不真正连带责任。一方面,通过比较分析方法,对国内外有关不真正连带责任的理论学说进行了对比分析,来论证在我国的立法环境下以及侵权法的特殊语境下应如何界定不真正连带责任概念的问题。另一方面,通过实证分析方法,搜集实际的裁判案例来论证如何将不真正连带责任的有关原理和规则运用到司法实务中。
[Abstract]:The theory of civil law on unreal joint liability or joint debt is not really a word is reflected even if multiple creditors have faced the debtor to fulfill the debt obligations, but the debtor is not responsible for the actual ultimate responsibility. In tort law, the unreal joint and several liability bearing fair idea the allocation of the burden of more important. Not really joint liability, more is due to the needs of society, it is the judicial practice and many joint liability or responsibility, the concept of special case but can not apply the rules extracted. Based on this, in the face of domestic and foreign scholars the unreal joint liability and judicial practice the concept of numerous insights to increase the unreal joint liability in tort cases how to deal with the disputes to be solved in this paper is in the field of tort law should be how Understand the concept of unreal joint and several liability, which how to wait as a guide to solve the typical case, the allocation of the burden of important problems, and should adopt the mode of action for judicial practice, provide reference for how to express the judgment. In the special context of tort law, the unique position of the unreal joint liability system in performance it not only reflects the number of people with no intention when the fault lies on the same damage results, an infringer can be exempted from the intentional tort responsibility, or when one in accordance with the law shall bear responsibility for the generation of dangerous liability, the infringer does not actually exist fault, another infringement the fault can be exempted from the internal responsibility; also reflects the tort law attaches great importance to the protection of the interests of the victims, the convenience of the damaged rights relief, the basic principle and ignoring the fault liability, so do not have the No fault liability is to bear the ultimate responsibility. In the tort law in the context of "common causes" different legal relations advocate as unreal joint liability reasons ", different foundation of right of claim" and so on are simplified as a kind of tort damage compensation legal relationship, the concrete forms are respectively. The implementation of the infringement caused by the same number of infringement damage without meaning of contact. At the same time, the "common" to emphasize the responsibility to fulfill the duty has become the same in the same damages. At this time, the definition of the tort law of unreal joint liability concept, should be settled in responsible person shall bear the ultimate responsibility for the final, the internal full right of recourse to the final responsible person of different levels of the responsibility level of the points on different levels. But the ultimate responsibility is based on the responsibility of each Different levels of any earth fault. On this basis, according to the number of tort liability for fault of their own standards of the fault liability per capita and non final liability without fault of these two kinds of situations, you can draw a variety of special tort types was established and not established the general idea of the unreal joint and several liability in. After the establishment of unreal joint liability, the next step is to discuss on the victim in lawsuit filed the lawsuit relief when the referee, trial, how should the problem. The judicial practice how to correctly apply the unreal joint responsibility is significant. This paper is divided into three parts to prove true special joint liability in tort law, the tort law of unreal joint liability concept, two cases of unreal joint liability and unreal joint liability cases of judicial treatment. The first part: the tort law is not true The concept of joint liability. The main contents include the unreal joint liability doctrine and the concept of tort law and unreal joint liability. The structure of the German law on unreal joint liability doctrine are many, and each has advantages and disadvantages. But in the specific context of the tort law of unreal joint liability, different levels of theory the obligation is most appropriate. On this basis, the tort law of the unreal joint obligation, is a responsible person on the same damage are liable for all or part of the victim in the total amount of compensation within the scope of any request or several liability for compensation, tort liability for non final the final responsible person to recover all the way to bear tort liability in compensation to the victim. Reflect the different levels on the definition of responsibility for the performance of the liability: on the one hand, a number of Foreign person liable in respect of the same damage to the victim of negative compensation obligation, but the amount of damages is not completely equal; on the other hand, the responsible person has all or nothing responsibility, the final responsibility eventually take full share, non final responsibility can be a full recovery in compensation arising. The right of recourse basis, is the responsibility of the world "- intentional negligence" or "fault - no fault fault relative structure. The provisions of article 26,27 of the application of the" tort liability law "on the income. The second part: two cases not really joint liability. The main content is non final according to whether the person liable there are some types of fault to investigate whether tort tort law does not constitute or form of unreal joint liability in the two cases. The tort law" corresponding supplementary liability "," corresponding. Liability for compensation ", because it does not affect the responsibility of people in internal relations established all or nothing responsibility, it is the establishment of the unreal joint and several liability. And determines the supplementary liability of internal and external responsibility and affect the establishment of different types of liability, fault structure between the with the actual responsibility. One can set up fault structure of unreal joint liability for the performance of the actual person responsible for intentional, supplementary liability of negligence, but similar in motor vehicle traffic accident liability cases, the infringer fault judgment is more complex, must distinguish between different situations were identified. But in fact does not have fault liability without the fault liability of parties to the legal provisions, and other violations of real fault, can also be set up not really joint liability. There are many of these cases, including the third invasion And when employees no fault liability of employer, the collapse of buildings for other people caused by fault liability when the construction units and construction units of responsibility and so on. The third part: the judicial treatment of unreal joint liability case. Mainly around the unreal joint liability litigation mode, considerations of unreal joint liability case judgment, expansion this and the relevant judgment document description, analysis of the tort law of unreal joint liability in judicial relief of particularity of the program. This can be seen, the tort law is not really even take responsibility in civil litigation by encounter substantive law and procedural law between strong substantive law differences. Think of unreal joint liability in tort cases the victim can choose one or several liability separately or jointly filed a lawsuit in the prosecution of a person for decision support but Failed to execute can then sue another person; and the litigation law to victims can only choose one or a necessary joint action and action point of view. In this regard, the merger theory can better learn the two theories strengths, it includes not only the common action form, including third people in the lawsuit. After the merger trial to make a judgment and make the responsibility of the external and internal relationship between recourse compensation obligation cognizance, can effectively avoid the victim due to multiple judgments of double compensation for unjust enrichment. And only when the victim prosecution responsibility of a final judgment, although for support but because the defendant unaccounted for other reasons without actual compensation, it has the right to another person liable to another suit, but there must be an end ruling executive, declared bankruptcy ruling, declaring the death of missing or judgment that is executed The effective legal documents were unable to identify the executive compensation, not before a judgment in the part of the court in order to trial, so as to avoid multiple repayment. In conclusion, this paper is based on the basic principle of contributory negligence in tort law to explain the unreal joint liability. On the one hand, through the method of comparative analysis, comparing analysis at home and abroad on the theory of unreal joint and several liability, to demonstrate the legislative situation in China and the tort law's special context of how to define the concept of unreal joint liability. On the other hand, through empirical analysis method, collect the actual case to demonstrate how to apply the relevant principle and rules the real joint liability to the judicial practice.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】