过失侵权中的注意义务

发布时间：2018-01-17 17:40

本文关键词：过失侵权中的注意义务　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：无论是基于侵权构成的“三要件说”还是“四要件说”,过错都是在判定侵权责任承担时所必需考量的重要因素。我国《侵权责任法》颁行,对于“过错责任”有了更加清晰的规定。然落实到司法实践中,如何在一个具体案件中适用这些规定,仅有法律条文又是不足的,其有赖于法理与法律实践的填补阙漏。美国侵权法上,过错与其说是侵权行为的构成要件,不如说是一种与故意侵权并存的独立责任状态。共同的人类社会的早期状态之下,是没有过错责任的。有的只是类似于后世的严格责任,只要发生了损害结果,即需要承担责任。随着社会的发展,人们对于未知世界的探索,这种严格责任越来越体现出对人的探索精神的束缚,于是开始对责任承担进行限制。 “邻人规则”的意义在于将西方社会所普遍接受的宗教规则,转化成应当一体遵循的基本法律理念。法学家以其智慧首先阐明应当对何种情形承担责任,即对你的“邻人”承担责任。而于“邻人”以外,则可以任意行为。然“邻人规则”毕竟失之粗疏,欠缺明确可操作性。正是因为此,其后出现了所谓“二步法”、“三部分法”,这些规则是法官在各自法律实践的基础上,对“邻人规则”的进一步发展。由于法官们的共同努力,较为模糊的过错责任,逐渐有了可以遵循的较为清晰的体系与确定的规则。至于其后“经济分析法学派”与在各个具体领域对过失侵权判定的规则,都体现出一种强烈的析理意识:意图向案内人与案外人表达一种观念,裁判是在遵循先例的基础上做出的,而不是任意为之。我国《侵权责任法》的司法实践中,判决往往存在说理不够充分之弊。尤其是做为侵权责任构成要件中的主观要件——过错。既没有成文法与司法解释对于这一问题进行较为详细的界定,又无可以为遵循的先例,往往只能委诸于法官的自由裁量权。而现实裁判中,法官基于种种原因往往又在判决中语焉不详。考诸“美国侵权行为法”之流变与规定,或可以为我国《侵权责任法》过错规则的适用提供一定参考。本文试图通过法律文本比较、案件分析、历史分析的方法,对于“美国侵权行为法”中过失侵权的规定、流变进行介绍,着重考察其从不确定中追求确定,为主观要件设定可以衡量的较为客观标准的法律精神。
[Abstract]:Whether based on the theory of "three elements" or "four elements" of tort, fault is an important factor that must be taken into account in the determination of tort liability. For "fault liability" has more clear provisions. But in judicial practice, how to apply these provisions in a specific case, only the provisions of the law is inadequate. It depends on the legal theory and legal practice to fill the gap. In the tort law of the United States, fault is not so much a constitutive element of tort as a state of independent responsibility coexisting with intentional tort. There is no fault liability. There is only a strict liability similar to later generations, as long as damage results, it is necessary to take responsibility. With the development of society, people explore the unknown world. This strict liability more and more reflects the human spirit of exploration, so began to limit the responsibility. The significance of the "neighborhood rule" lies in the conversion of the generally accepted religious rules in the western society into the basic legal concepts that should be followed. The jurist, with his wisdom, first states that he should be responsible for what kind of situation. That is to say, take responsibility for your "neighbor". But outside of "neighbor", you can act arbitrarily. However, "neighbor rule" is careless after all, lack of clarity and maneuverability. This is precisely because of this. After that, the so-called "two-step law" and "three-part law" appeared. These rules are the further development of the "neighbor rule" on the basis of their respective legal practice. The blurry fault liability gradually has clear system and definite rules which can be followed. As for the later "Economic Analysis School" and the rules for the adjudication of fault infringement in various specific fields. They all embody a strong sense of reasoning: they intend to express a kind of idea to the person in the case and to the outsider of the case, and the judgment is made on the basis of following the precedent, not arbitrarily. The judicial practice of tort liability law in our country. Judgment often has the disadvantage of insufficient reasoning, especially as a subjective element of tort liability-fault. There is no statutory law and judicial interpretation to define this problem in detail. There is no precedent that can be followed, which can only be imposed on the discretion of the judge. For various reasons, the judge is often vague in the judgment. The evolution and regulation of the American Tort Law may provide some reference for the application of the fault rule of the Tort liability Law in our country. This article attempts to compare the legal texts, case analysis, historical analysis methods, for the "tort law" in the tort provisions, evolution, focusing on the pursuit of uncertainty from the pursuit of certainty. Set a more objective standard for subjective elements of the legal spirit.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D913

【相似文献】