论侵权法上的公平分担损失规则

发布时间：2018-09-18 08:01

【摘要】：公平分担损失规则一直是理论界和实务界研究的热点和难点问题。该条规定本质在于授予法官一定的自由裁量权对损失进行合理分配,追求公平的社会价值。在实务中,仅靠抽象模糊的立法来处理具体案件,存在较多问题,亟需厘清该规则的法律构成及具体适用情形,细化适用标准以规范其适用。本文综合运用案例类型化分析法、比较分析法、法经济学分析等研究方法,试图通过梳理相关理论和典型案例,考察公平分担损失规则在侵权责任法上的体系及其具体内容,探求公平分担损失规则的适用范围及标准,为未来的裁判提供参考。导论部分阐述了选题背景和研究价值,评述了所能收集到的国内外法律规定及研究成果,揭示其进一步的发展趋势。正文分为四个部分:第一部分是问题的提出,即通过典型案例的类型化比对来发现司法实践中存在的待解决的问题。表格中的案例说明,法官对公平分担损失规则的认知不同,得出的判决结果也不一样。有的判决书结合具体事实对“实际情况”做出说明,而有的判决书则一笔带过。这一方面是由于法官素质的差异及个案的差别所导致的,另一方面就是因为缺乏具体的法律标准。第二部分对公平分担损失规则的一般适用规则进行分析。首先解读了公平分担损失规则的概念和制度价值;其次厘清了《侵权责任法》第24条与《民法通则》第132条之间的关系;再次分析了公平分担损失规则与归责原则之间的区别;最后详细阐述了公平分担损失规则的法律构成。第三部分根据案由把公平分担损失规则的实际适用情形分为六类:第一,见义勇为中侵权人不确定、无力承担或者无侵权人之情形;第二,紧急避险致损之情形;第三,无过错的完全民事行为能力人无意识或失去控制致损之情形;第四,多层建筑物抛掷或坠落物品致损之情形;第五,情谊行为致损之情形;第六,对抗运动致损之情形。第四部分探讨了公平分担损失规则的未来走向。通过深入分析公平分担损失规则的历史局限性,并通过上文的分析结论进行设想,以期能够对我国司法裁判提出指引。
[Abstract]:Fair allocation of loss rules has always been a hot and difficult problem in theoretical and practical circles. The essence of this provision is to grant the judge certain discretion to distribute the loss reasonably and to pursue the fair social value. In practice, there are many problems in dealing with specific cases only by abstract and fuzzy legislation. It is urgent to clarify the legal constitution and specific application of this rule, and to refine the applicable standard to standardize its application. This paper makes use of the methods of case type analysis, comparative analysis, law and economics analysis, and tries to investigate the system and content of fair sharing of loss rules in tort liability law by combing relevant theories and typical cases. To explore the scope and standards of fair allocation of loss rules, and to provide reference for future referees. The introduction describes the background and research value of the topic, comments on the domestic and foreign legal provisions and research results collected, and reveals its further development trend. The text is divided into four parts: the first part is the problem raised, that is, through the typification comparison of typical cases to find out the problems to be solved in the judicial practice. The cases in the table show that the judge's perception of the fair allocation of loss rules is different and the results are different. Some judgments combined with specific facts to explain the "actual situation", and some judgments are written. On the one hand, it is caused by the differences of judges' qualities and individual cases, on the other hand, it is due to the lack of specific legal standards. The second part analyzes the general rules of fair allocation of loss. Firstly, it explains the concept and institutional value of the rules of fair allocation of loss, secondly clarifies the relationship between Article 24 of the Tort liability Law and Article 132 of the General principles of Civil Law, and then analyzes the differences between the rules of fair allocation of losses and the principle of imputation. Finally, the legal constitution of the rules of fair allocation of loss is elaborated in detail. The third part divides the actual application of the fair allocation of loss rule into six categories according to the case: first, the situation where the infringer is uncertain, unable to bear or does not have the infringer; the second, the situation of emergency avoiding the risk and causing damage; and the third, the situation that the infringer is uncertain, unable to undertake or have no infringer; third, No-fault completely civil capacity person unconsciously or out of control damage situation; fourth, multi-storey buildings throw or fall objects damage; fifthly, friendship behavior damage; sixthly, the situation of physical damage. The fourth part discusses the future trend of fair allocation of loss rules. Through in-depth analysis of the historical limitations of the fair allocation of loss rules, and through the above conclusions of the analysis of the assumption, in order to provide guidance to the judicial decision in China.
【学位授予单位】：扬州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】