本文選題：被征收房屋　切入點(diǎn)：侵權(quán)責(zé)任　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：安全保障義務(wù)是指，行為人在從事某些活動(dòng)時(shí)，如果預(yù)見(jiàn)自己的行為會(huì)導(dǎo)致他人遭受損害，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)采取合理的措施，保障他人的人身或者財(cái)產(chǎn)利益免受自己行為的侵害。安全保障義務(wù)既包含了對(duì)物的安全保障義務(wù)也包含了對(duì)人的安全保障義務(wù)，在我國(guó)20世紀(jì)90年代末前，安全保障義務(wù)理論僅僅指物的安全保障義務(wù)，不包括對(duì)人的安全保障義務(wù)，由于第三人侵權(quán)案件的大量出現(xiàn)，為保護(hù)受害人的利益，最高人民法院才在2003年12月28日頒布的《關(guān)于審理人身?yè)p害賠償案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》中明確了經(jīng)營(yíng)者對(duì)進(jìn)入者人身安全承擔(dān)安全保障的義務(wù)1，此后，該條文亦被《中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第37條2所吸收。但該條文所規(guī)定的承擔(dān)安保責(zé)任的主體是公共場(chǎng)所的管理人或者群眾性活動(dòng)的組織者，由于公共場(chǎng)所和群眾性活動(dòng)具有開(kāi)放性，因此法規(guī)對(duì)進(jìn)入者的身份并未進(jìn)行區(qū)分，從而也未區(qū)分對(duì)于不同進(jìn)入者的不同的注意義務(wù)。但是，如果搶劫者因商場(chǎng)地面濕滑跌倒導(dǎo)致傷殘和搶劫失敗，商場(chǎng)是否應(yīng)當(dāng)區(qū)分對(duì)進(jìn)入商場(chǎng)購(gòu)物者和進(jìn)入商場(chǎng)搶劫者的注意義務(wù)，是否應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)搶劫者承擔(dān)安保責(zé)任？若要商場(chǎng)對(duì)搶劫者承擔(dān)因跌傷造成的損失，顯然是不符合常理和一般善良風(fēng)俗的。此外，由于我國(guó)法律對(duì)涉及私人空間的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)侵權(quán)缺少法律規(guī)定，其中對(duì)于區(qū)分進(jìn)入者身份的規(guī)定僅有受害人在不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)人的非經(jīng)營(yíng)場(chǎng)所的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)之內(nèi)或之上受到侵害，當(dāng)受害人要求不產(chǎn)權(quán)人對(duì)其承擔(dān)侵權(quán)賠償責(zé)任時(shí)，我國(guó)法院出于對(duì)受害人權(quán)益的保護(hù)，通常會(huì)采取過(guò)失相抵原則對(duì)案件進(jìn)行裁判，這樣雖然可以最大限度的保障受害人的利益，但是對(duì)于不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)人而言卻加重了其義務(wù)，不利于對(duì)私權(quán)的保護(hù)。因此，區(qū)分進(jìn)入者的身份并對(duì)不同進(jìn)入者承擔(dān)不同的注意義務(wù)應(yīng)是承擔(dān)安保責(zé)任的應(yīng)有之內(nèi)容。本文選取非法進(jìn)入被征收房屋造成自身?yè)p害的案例，試圖對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)人應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的注意義務(wù)進(jìn)行闡述。 石某、廖某等人經(jīng)協(xié)商進(jìn)入廖某已被征收的房屋中拆除房屋牟利，石某不慎摔傷致死，某征地辦公室及廖某等人是否應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)石某的損害承擔(dān)賠償？法院判決某征地辦公室及廖某等人根據(jù)賠償能力的不同分別對(duì)石某的損害承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任，筆者認(rèn)為：本案受害者石某不僅未經(jīng)被征收房屋權(quán)利人——某征地辦公室的同意，，反而其進(jìn)入被征收房屋的目的是竊取被征收房屋的鋼筋，進(jìn)入者懷著侵犯不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)人權(quán)益的目的進(jìn)入不動(dòng)產(chǎn)，又因自身原因造成損害，卻判令被侵權(quán)人——某征地辦公室承擔(dān)侵權(quán)賠償責(zé)任，這樣的判例不僅于法無(wú)據(jù)，而且有悖情理。本文分別從安保責(zé)任、物之損害責(zé)任的法律適用、某征地辦公室的主體問(wèn)題、某征地辦公應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的一般安保責(zé)任及安保責(zé)任的免除等方面進(jìn)行論述，認(rèn)為：某征地辦公室不應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)石某的損害承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。 此外，由于本案中還涉及到其他與石某一起進(jìn)入被征收房屋的人是否應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)石某的損害承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任問(wèn)題，本文從一起進(jìn)入者的主體問(wèn)題、適用法律問(wèn)題等方面進(jìn)行分析，認(rèn)為一起進(jìn)入者也不應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)石某的損害承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Security obligations refers to the behavior of people engaged in certain activities, if anticipate your behavior will cause others to suffer damage, they shall take reasonable measures to protect other personal or property interests from infringement. Their security obligations include both of the security obligation also contains the people security obligations in China before the end of 1990s, the security obligation theory only refers to the obligation of security, not including the security obligation, because of the emergence of a large number of third infringement cases, for the protection of the interests of the victims, explanations of the Supreme People's Court issued in December 28, 2003 "on issues concerning the application of law the trial of personal injury compensation case clearly the personal safety of operators to assume security obligations 1, thereafter, the provisions are" People's Republic of China The tort liability law > thirty-seventh 2 absorbed. But the main assume security responsibility stipulated in the provisions of the managers of public places or organizers of mass activities due to public places and activities of the masses is open, so the regulations did not identity to distinguish, which did not distinguish for different entrants the different duty of care. However, if the robbery because the mall ground slippery falls may lead to disability and rob failure, whether shopping malls should distinguish the duty of care to enter the shopping malls and enter the mall robbery, should bear the responsibility for the security of looters? If you want to take responsibility for the loss caused by the market falls on the robber, apparently do not meet the common sense and general good customs. In addition, due to the law of our country to the private space of the immovable property infringement is lack of legal provisions, which entered the body to distinguish a gauge Set only the victim in real property of non operating real estate sites within or above are violated, when the victim does not require property owners to assume the tort liability in the courts of our country, in order to protect the rights of victims, usually take the principle of contributory negligence to the case for the referee, although this may be the interests of the victim maximum security, but for real property has exacerbated its obligations, is not conducive to the protection of private rights. Therefore, the identity and the distinction into different entry bear different duty of care should undertake security responsibility should be content. This paper selects illegal expropriation of houses caused by entering their own damage case, the duty of care to immovable property rights shall be liable for this paper.
Danmou, Liao et al after consultation into liaomou has been levied on housing demolition of houses for profit, danmou accidentally falls to death, is a land office and Liao et al of danmou shall be liable for compensation for damages? The court of a land office and Liao et al according to different compensation ability on danmou damage bear the responsibility for compensation, I think: the victims danmou not only without the expropriation of housing rights, agreed to a land office, but the houses to be expropriated to steal steel houses to be expropriated, entrants with violations of real property rights to enter the real estate, and damage for their own reasons, but ordered the tort liability for Tort -- a land office bearers, this case not only have no basis in law, but also contrary to reason. This paper from the security responsibility, the liability for damage The application of law, the subject of a land expropriation office, the general security responsibilities and the exemption of security responsibilities of a land acquisition office shall be discussed. It is considered that a land requisition office should not be liable for damages of Shimou.
In addition, because this case also involves other danmou together into the houses to be expropriated person shall be liable for compensation of danmou damage, this paper from the main body together into the problem, the applicable legal issues such as analysis, think together entrants should not be liable to danmou damage.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 施長(zhǎng)平;;我國(guó)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)安全保障義務(wù)制度建構(gòu)——從普通法的區(qū)分原則談起[J];昆明學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

2 張平華;;侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任的現(xiàn)實(shí)類(lèi)型[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年02期

3 楊垠紅;;論不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)利人之作為義務(wù)——美國(guó)《侵權(quán)法第三次重述》新動(dòng)向之啟示[J];法學(xué)論壇;2013年03期

4 費(fèi)安玲;對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)征收的私法思考[J];政法論壇;2003年01期

5 申冬亮;;論征收決定生效后地價(jià)上漲部分的補(bǔ)償問(wèn)題[J];中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)研究生學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

6 張民安;;“侵權(quán)行為的構(gòu)成要件”抑或“侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件”之辨——行為人對(duì)他人承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任條件的稱(chēng)謂[J];政治與法律;2012年12期

本文編號(hào)：1585343