论紧急避险在机动车交通事故责任纠纷中的适用

发布时间：2018-06-26 18:13

本文选题：紧急避险 + 交通事故　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：“紧急时无法律”这句古老的谚语可以说是紧急避险制度最初的来源。紧急避险制度在我国刑法和民法中的规定并不完全一致。刑法中关于紧急避险行为的研究较之民法而言更为深入,法律规定也更为全面合理。紧急避险制度在我国民法中发展至今,也只有《民法通则》、《侵权责任法》寥寥数条文有相应的规定。《侵权责任法》关于紧急避险的规定不仅没有涉及“紧急避险”的概念,而且“必要的限度”“适当的责任”等法律术语也语焉不详。正是由于法律规定的抽象性导致了紧急避险制度在实际适用过程中出现了一些偏颇。因此,笔者认为有必要对紧急避险的相关规定和适用情况作一些探讨。本文首先通过研究当前我国法院在具体案件中对紧急避险制度的适用存在的问题引发对紧急避险制度的思考,而后从比较法和紧急避险制度的性质等角度来对现有紧急避险制度进行补充和解释。在研究对象上,本文选取的具体案件类型为机动车交通事故责任纠纷,原因不仅在于紧急避险制度作为一种免责事由可能出现在各种类型的案件之中,以所有案件类型作为研究对象不免庞杂无绪;而且还在于机动车交通事故责任纠纷发生紧急避险的情况较多,适用上具有典型性。本文共分为五部分:第一部分介绍紧急避险在机动车交通事故责任纠纷中适用的基础,包括实践适用的困难性和如何看待交通事故责任认定书的问题。适用困难性是指机动车交通事故责任纠纷的发生具有事发的突然性、后果的严重性、行为的违法性等特点。第二部分通过对笔者在中国裁判文书网和北大法宝上搜集的案例进行整理归纳,运用实证研究的方法,将搜集的案件区分为“法院未采纳紧急避险的案件”和“法院采纳紧急避险的案件”两类。笔者试图通过此种分类来说明紧急避险制度在机动车交通事故责任纠纷中适用的现状。分析法院在此类案件中适用紧急避险制度可能存在的问题。第三部分介绍紧急避险的构成要件在机动车交通事故责任纠纷中是如何判断的。本部分笔者论述了紧急避险构成要件三个方面的问题,分别是避险对象的判断、紧急危险的判断、避险限度的判断。第四部分分析机动车交通事故责任纠纷中适用紧急避险的责任分担。不管前述论证如何,任何一个案件的处理其结果最终必然落实在责任的分担上。此部分主要分析的是紧急避险人对险情的发生有过错时应该如何承担责任以及受益人或避险人在何种情况下应该适当补偿的情形。第五部分分析机动车交通事故责任纠纷中紧急避险制度证明责任的分担。从本文所选法院对机动车交通事故责任纠纷的裁判理由分析看,多数不支持适用紧急避险制度的法院都以证据不足为裁判理由,但法院并未说明紧急避险制度证明责任如何分配以及当事人需要承担证明责任的程度。这使得“证据不足”的说辞很容易成为法院规避适用紧急避险的“万能钥匙”。笔者认为,法院在说理过程中,应该以紧急避险各个构成要件是否有证据支撑来论证紧急避险是否得以适用。
[Abstract]:The old proverb "emergency without law" can be said to be the original source of the emergency insurance system. The emergency hedging system is not exactly the same in China's criminal law and civil law. The study of emergency avoidance in criminal law is more thorough than civil law, and the legal provisions are more comprehensive and reasonable. The emergency avoidance system is in our country. Since the civil law has developed so far, there are only the general provisions of the civil law, and there are corresponding provisions in the few articles of the tort liability law. The law of tort liability for emergency avoidance not only does not involve the concept of "emergency avoidance", but the "necessary limits" and "appropriate liability" are also unknown. It is the abstract of the law. Therefore, the author thinks it is necessary to discuss the relevant regulations and application of emergency avoidance. This article first studies the emergency avoidance system by studying the existing problems of the emergency avoidance system in the specific cases of our country's courts. The present emergency avoidance system is supplemented and explained from the perspective of comparative law and the nature of emergency hedging system. On the object of study, the specific type of the case is the liability dispute of vehicle traffic accident. The reason is not only that the emergency avoidance system is a kind of exemption cause that may appear in various types. In the case, it is not unavoidable to take all types of cases as the object of study; and it also lies in the case that there are many cases of emergency avoidance of motor vehicle accidents, and it is typical. This paper is divided into five parts: the first part introduces the basis for the application of emergency avoidance in the liability dispute of motor vehicle accidents. The difficulty of practice and how to look at the identification of traffic accident liability. The application of difficulty refers to the suddenness of the incident, the seriousness of the consequences, the illegality of the behavior and so on. The second part is carried out through the cases collected by the author in the Chinese referee's net and the North French treasure. Through the method of empirical research, the cases are divided into two categories: "the court does not adopt emergency avoidance" and "the court adopts the case of emergency avoidance". The author tries to illustrate the current situation of the application of emergency avoidance system in the dispute dispute of motor vehicle accidents. In the third part, the third part introduces how to judge the components of emergency avoidance in the liability dispute of motor vehicle accidents. The author discusses three aspects of the components of emergency avoidance, which are the judgment of the safe haven, the judgment of the emergency danger and the judgment of the limit of the risk avoidance. The fourth part analyzes the responsibility sharing of emergency avoidance in the liability disputes of motor vehicle accidents. No matter what the previous argumentation, the results of any case will eventually be carried out in the share of responsibility. This part mainly analyzes how the emergency hedging should take responsibility and benefit when it is at fault for the occurrence of danger. The fifth part analyses the sharing of the burden of proof of the emergency avoidance system in the liability dispute of motor vehicle accidents. From the analysis of the reasons for the referee of the motor vehicle accident liability dispute, most of the courts that do not support the application of the emergency avoidance system are all evidences. There is no justification for the referee, but the court does not explain the distribution of the burden of proof in the emergency system and the extent to which the parties need to bear the burden of proof. This makes the words "insufficient evidence" easy to be a "universal key" for the court to circumvent the application of emergency avoidance. Whether there is evidence support to prove whether emergency hedging is applicable.
【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】