论安全保障义务的合理限度

发布时间：2018-06-26 14:16

本文选题：安全保障义务 + 合理限度　；参考：《西南科技大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来,审判实践中越来越多的关于违反安全保障义务纠纷上演,社会安全问题越来越突出。最高人民法院《关于人身损害赔偿适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)第6条第一次提出了“安全保障义务”这一概念,并对安全保障义务范围作出了“合理限度范围”的限制,但是,由于该标准过于抽象,司法实践中难以把握。《侵权责任法》第37条对安全保障义务作了进一步的规定,遗憾的是该条不但未能对“合理限度”作进一步的界定,甚至对“合理限度范围”只字未提,此种立法导向导致了司法实践中同案不同判的混乱局面。本论文通过叙述一则在医院内发生的人身损害案例,结合安全保障义务的合理限度对本案例的争议焦点进行了分析。第一部分主要介绍了基本案情,归纳了本案的争议焦点。第二部分围绕争议焦点展开论述：首先分析了医疗机构尽到安全保障义务的一般判断标准,得出本案医院从一般判断标准来看尽到了安全保障义务的结论；其次,分析针对本案这一类型的第三人暴力犯罪案件,医院不负有防制犯罪的安全保障义务,此时医院的安全保障义务为事前的提醒注意义务和事后的救助报警义务;最后提出对本案法院适用过错推定原则的不同看法,主张适用一般的过错责任原则。第三部分是由本案引发的司考,论述了安全保障义务应该以“合理限度”为根本,提出了“合理限度”边界的量化标准。
[Abstract]:In recent years, there are more and more disputes about violating the obligation of security in trial practice, and the problem of social security is becoming more and more prominent. Article 6 of the Supreme people's Court's interpretation of some issues concerning the applicable Law of compensation for personal injury (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation"), for the first time, has proposed the concept of "duty of security". The scope of security obligation is limited by "reasonable limit", but it is difficult to grasp in judicial practice because the standard is too abstract. Article 37 of the Tort liability Law makes further provisions on the duty of safety and security. Unfortunately, this article has not only failed to further define the "reasonable limit", but has not even mentioned the "reasonable limit". This legislative guidance has led to the confusion of different judgments in the judicial practice. In this paper, a case of personal injury occurred in hospital is described, and the dispute focus of this case is analyzed in combination with the reasonable limits of safety and security obligations. The first part mainly introduces the basic facts of the case and summarizes the focus of the dispute. The second part focuses on the focus of the dispute: first of all, it analyzes the general criteria of medical institutions to fulfill the obligations of safety and security, and draws the conclusion that the hospital in this case has fulfilled the obligations of safety and security from the general criteria; secondly, According to the analysis of the third party violent crime case, the hospital does not have the duty of safety and security to prevent the crime. At this time, the duty of safety and security of the hospital is the duty of warning in advance and the obligation of rescuing the police afterwards. Finally, the author puts forward different views on the application of the presumption of fault principle in the court of this case, and advocates the application of the general fault liability principle. In the third part, the author discusses that the duty of safety and security should be based on reasonable limit, and puts forward the quantitative standard of "reasonable limit".
【学位授予单位】：西南科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】