论共饮者安全保障义务

发布时间：2018-06-21 14:46

本文选题：共饮者 + 安全保障义务　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国是一个饮酒大国,社会日常生活中无论入学、升迁、乔迁新居、甚至平时毫无缘由的聚会,总免不了喝酒。酒能活跃酒桌气氛,联络交流感情。但现代社会却时刻蕴含着诸多安全隐患和潜在危险。所以,近年来因共同饮酒而引发的侵权损害赔偿纠纷日益增多,屡见报端,已引起社会各界的高度关注和热议。2003年出台的《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》以及2009出台的《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》,虽对安全保障义务做出了比较详尽的规定,但对于共饮者是否承担安全保障义务规定不明。在理论界很少有学者对这类问题进行专门的研究探讨。法院在共饮者侵权责任的认定上也很不统一,适用法律比较混乱,经常出现“同案不同判”的现象,在社会上引起了广泛的争议。本文从例举案例入手,引发对共饮者安全保障义务问题的思考,探讨了共饮者承担安全保障义务的来源和理论依据,并通过对共饮者承担安全保障义务的论证,进而理清共饮者安全保障义务的内容和范围、违反安全保障义务的归责原则以及侵权责任的承担等相关问题,最后对我国共饮者安全保障义务的立法完善提出建议。除了引言和结语,本文主体分为六个部分第一部分首先介绍了关于共饮者安全保障义务的两个案例,包括案件的缘由、判决结果。对于类似的案例,法院的判决结果却截然不同。然后通过对比分析这两个案例的判决理由,进而引发对共饮者安全保障义务问题的探讨。第二部分主要介绍了我国共饮者安全保障义务的立法现状。首先介绍了安全保障义务的产生和发展。然后介绍了安全保障义务在我国的发展状况,以及具体的法律规定。通过对《人身损害赔偿司法解释》第6条以及《侵权责任法》第37条关于安全保障义务主体对比分析,得知共饮者不符合承担安全保障义务的主体要件。第三部分主要阐述了我国共饮者承担安全保障义务的理论基础。首先阐述了安全保障义务的概念和性质,然后主要从先行行为产生义务的视角分析我国共饮者承担安全保障义务的理论依据。第四部分主要阐述了共饮者安全保障义务的内容和范围。首先阐述了共饮者安全保障义务的具体内容,并以合理人标准来检视共饮者是否履行了安全保障义务。其次阐述了共饮者安全保障义务的范围,包括主体范围、对象范围以及时间和空间范围。第五部分主要对共饮者违反安全保障义务的责任进行分析。首先确定了共饮者违反安全保障义务适用过错责任原则,在过错证明上适用过错推定的方法。其次分析了共饮者违反安全保障义务侵权责任的构成要件。最后着重分析了共饮者违反安全保障义务责任承担与免除的问题。第六部分主要对我国共饮者安全保障义务立法上的完善提出建议。首先分析我国共饮者安全保障义务立法存在的不足。然后通过对立法完善必要性的分析,提出应当在《侵权责任法》中明确规定因先行行为所引起的安全保障义务,以切实保护共同饮酒致损案件中的受害人的合法权益。
[Abstract]:Our country is a big drinking country. In the daily life of the society, no matter the entrance, the promotion, the new residence, and even the party without the reason, the wine can always drink. The wine can activate the wine table atmosphere and communicate the feelings. But the modern society always contains many hidden dangers and potential risks. Therefore, the torts caused by the common drinking in recent years are caused by the infringement. The increasing number of indemnity disputes and repeated reports have caused the high attention of the community and the hot discussion of the interpretation of the law of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the law on the case of compensation for personal damage in.2003, and the "People's Republic of China tort liability law" issued by the 2009 There are few scholars in the theoretical circle to study this kind of problem. In the theoretical circle, there are few scholars on this kind of problem. The court is also very disunified in the cognizance of the liability for the infringer. The application of the law is confused and the phenomenon of "different cases of the same case" is often appeared, which has caused widespread controversy in the society. From the case of example, this article causes the consideration of the safety guarantee obligation of the common drink, discusses the source and theoretical basis of the responsibility of the common drink, and through the proof of the obligation of safety and security for the co drinking, then clarifies the content and scope of the obligations of the safety and security of the co drinking and drinking, and violates the liability for safety and security. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the main part of this article is divided into six parts, part one, which first introduces the two cases of the safety guarantee obligation of the drinking maker, including the reasons for the case and the result of the judgment. The case, the result of the court's decision is completely different. Then through the comparison and analysis of the reasons for the two cases, and then lead to the discussion of the problem of the security obligation of the common drink. The second part mainly introduces the legislative status of the safety guarantee obligation of the Chinese drink maker. First, it introduces the production and development of the security obligation. Then it introduces the development of the security obligation. The development status of safety guarantee obligation in China, and specific legal provisions. Through the comparison and analysis of the sixth articles of the judicial interpretation of the personal injury compensation, the law of tort liability and the thirty-seventh articles on the subject of security obligations, the author learns that the common drink does not conform to the principal elements of the obligation to undertake the safety and security. The third part mainly expounds the common drink in China. In the fourth part, the content and scope of the safety guarantee obligation of the co drinking person are mainly expounded. The specific content of the safety guarantee obligation, and the standard of reasonable person to check whether the partner has fulfilled the safety guarantee obligation. Secondly, it expounds the scope of the safety guarantee obligation of the partner, including the scope of the subject, the scope of the object and the scope of time and space. The fifth part mainly analyzes the responsibility of the co drinking violators in violation of the safety and security obligations. First, we determine the principle of fault liability applicable to the partner who violates the safety guarantee obligation, and apply the method of fault presumption on the proof of the fault. Secondly, it analyzes the elements of the liability for infringement of the safety guarantee obligation of the common drink. Finally, the author emphatically analyzes the problems of the liability and exemption of the violators of the safety and security obligations. The sixth part is mainly about the problem. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the legislative perfection of the safety guarantee obligation of the Chinese coiser. First, it analyzes the shortcomings of the legislation of the safety guarantee obligation of the coiser in our country. Then, through the analysis of the necessity of the legislative perfection, it is proposed that the security obligation caused by the act of first act should be clearly stipulated in the tort liability law to protect the common drink. The legal rights and interests of the victims in the case of wine damage.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】