物业服务企业违反安全保障义务的侵权责任认定研究

发布时间：2018-05-16 09:59

本文选题：物业服务企业 + 安全保障义务　；参考：《安徽财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：自人诞生,一刻都未停息过对安全价值的追求。在小区化的社会中,物业服务企业对我们承担着安全保障义务。《人身损害赔偿解释》最早以司法的形式确立了安全保障义务,《侵权责任法》又在之后颁布,《物业管理条例》也同样对物业服务企业的安全保障义务做出了规定。由于物业服务行业在我国起步较晚还不成熟,面对日渐增多的违反安全保障义务而产生的物业纠纷,现行的法律法规显得有些捉襟见肘。法官在司法审判中,由于法律规范规定的过于模糊和抽象,行使裁量权时的随意性过大,往往会出现同类案件不同判决。在学术理论界,学者们对义务的相关内容也各执一词。为了维护法律应有的正义功能,对法学理论发展有所贡献,本文对物业服务企业的安全保障义务的相关内容进行了探讨。开篇在理论层面对物业服务企业安全保障义务的内容和法理依据进行了阐述。作为民商法中的一部分,笔者对义务所涵盖的内容从侵权事件的发生进程角度进行分析,结合法律规定和社会实践得出物业在三个阶段应有的义务内容。结合民商事法律应有的价值,追源溯本地分析安保义务所存在的三项法理基础。接着对成文法律规范进行剖析。笔者将物业服务企业的安全保障义务在现有侵权责任的法律框架下,对侵权认定的相关法律法规从侵权责任的归责原则、整个责任认定的构成要件以及责任承担的规定三处进行了分析。其后展开叙述了由责任认定而产生的争议。在侵权认定中存在着四方面争议:举证归属,权利主体的范围,要件的违法性认识,承担补充责任的责任形态。对所提及的问题中学者的观点进行了梳理。结尾笔者对争议提出了自己的见解。针对侵权责任认定中存在的问题,笔者认为在侵权行为的判断中将举证责任倒置才有利双方的公平;由优势地位的物业承担举证责任更利于保障受害人权益;在考虑到法律设置的本意的前提下应当将权利主体适当扩大,才能尽可能涵盖纠纷中受损害者;对违法性认定争议中的“合理限度”提出了综合性的标准,从多角度去考量标准的要求,在责任承担方面,第三人介入侵权的情况下,物业应承担相应补充责任,相应的范围要考虑两方因素,并且物业在承担补充责任后可以向第三人进行追偿。
[Abstract]:Since the birth of human beings, a moment has not stopped the pursuit of the value of security. In a community society, Property service enterprises bear the duty of safety and security to us. The interpretation of personal injury compensation established the duty of security in the form of judicature at the earliest. The Tort liability Law was promulgated later, and the property Management regulations did the same. Property service enterprise safety and security obligations to make provisions. Due to the late start of the property service industry in China is not mature, in the face of increasing violations of security obligations and property disputes, the current laws and regulations seem to be overstretched. In the judicial trial, because the legal norm is too vague and abstract, the arbitrariness of the exercise of the discretion is too big, so the similar cases often appear different judgments. In the academic theoretical circle, scholars also insist on the relevant content of obligation. In order to maintain the justice function of the law and contribute to the development of the legal theory, this paper discusses the relevant contents of the safety and security obligations of the property service enterprises. At the beginning of the article, the content and legal basis of security obligation of property service enterprises are expounded in theory. As a part of the civil and commercial law, the author analyzes the content covered by the obligation from the perspective of the occurrence process of the tort event, and obtains the content of the obligation of the property in the three stages combined with the legal provisions and social practice. Combined with the value of civil and commercial law, the author analyzes the three legal basis of security obligation. Then analyze the written legal norms. The author puts the safety and security obligations of property service enterprises under the existing legal framework of tort liability, and assigns the relevant laws and regulations to tort liability from the principle of tort liability. The constitution of the whole responsibility and the provisions of the responsibility are analyzed. After that, it narrates the disputes arising from the determination of responsibility. There are four aspects of disputes in tort determination: the attribution of proof, the scope of the subject of right, the illegality of the elements, and the form of responsibility to bear supplementary responsibility. The author sorts out the viewpoints of the scholars on the mentioned problems. At the end, the author puts forward his own opinion on the controversy. In view of the problems existing in the identification of tort liability, the author believes that the reversal of the burden of proof is beneficial to both sides in the judgment of tort, and the burden of proof to be borne by the superior property is more conducive to the protection of the rights and interests of the victims. Taking into account the original intention of the legal establishment, the subject of the right should be appropriately expanded to cover the injured person in the dispute as far as possible, and the "reasonable limit" in the dispute of illegality is proposed as a comprehensive standard. Consider the requirements of the standard from a variety of angles. In the case of liability assumption, when the third party is involved in infringement, the property should bear the corresponding supplementary liability, and the corresponding scope should take into account the factors of both sides. And the property can be recovered from the third party after assuming supplementary responsibility.
【学位授予单位】：安徽财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】