發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-02 06:17

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 好意同乘 侵權(quán)責(zé)任 歸責(zé)原則 責(zé)任承擔(dān)　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在社會(huì)變遷中,社會(huì)上出現(xiàn)了一種“搭順風(fēng)車”新現(xiàn)象。這種搭順風(fēng)車的行為就是法律術(shù)語(yǔ)中所說(shuō)的“好意同乘”。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的急速發(fā)展,機(jī)動(dòng)車的數(shù)量也越來(lái)越多,不得不履行私家車單雙號(hào)分日行駛的政策,有車一族免費(fèi)順路捎帶朋友一程這種舉手之勞的常事也屢見(jiàn)不鮮。所以,順路捎帶朋友一程的事情越來(lái)越多也無(wú)可厚非。其中我國(guó)對(duì)因好意同乘引發(fā)的道路交通事故仍沒(méi)有明確的責(zé)任劃分,沒(méi)有相關(guān)的法律出臺(tái),交通部部長(zhǎng)楊傳堂在2016年的兩會(huì)上也提出:激勵(lì)合乘、順風(fēng)車等分享經(jīng)濟(jì)形式的展開(kāi)。我們也可預(yù)計(jì)日后會(huì)有越來(lái)越多道路交通事故糾紛是由于好意同乘引起。因此引起的道路交通事故該如何處理?法律責(zé)任誰(shuí)來(lái)承擔(dān)?因?yàn)槭呛靡馔四芊衩獬淮畛巳说呢?zé)任?所以,有關(guān)好意同乘交通事故的責(zé)任承擔(dān)就成為目前亟待解決的問(wèn)題。好意同乘過(guò)程中未發(fā)生交通事故時(shí),車輛供給者和搭乘者之間存在友好和諧的關(guān)系當(dāng)然可維系,不過(guò),只要發(fā)生人身、財(cái)產(chǎn)損害,車輛供給者和搭乘者之間的社會(huì)關(guān)系從好意轉(zhuǎn)化成為補(bǔ)償搭乘者的關(guān)系。但是好意同乘與一般的侵權(quán)案件不同,好意同乘案件中的侵權(quán)主體、客體的責(zé)任承擔(dān)需要進(jìn)一步明確,如果在發(fā)生交通事故時(shí)車輛供給者不是有意而為之,造成損害的過(guò)程存在著特殊的情況,如事故的發(fā)生是同乘者造成的或者是第三方的責(zé)任等,那么在這些情況下,好意同乘侵權(quán)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)問(wèn)題將是面臨的一項(xiàng)重大挑戰(zhàn)。本文首先給出了兩個(gè)好意同乘案例,對(duì)這兩個(gè)案例進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析,在此基礎(chǔ)上提出了在好意同乘過(guò)程中侵權(quán)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)問(wèn)題,想要對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深刻的探討,我們需要詳細(xì)了解好意同乘過(guò)程中的相關(guān)知識(shí)。怎樣界定好意同乘,車輛供給者與搭乘者在好意同乘過(guò)程中需要履行什么樣的權(quán)利和義務(wù),好意同乘交通事故中存在哪些法律性質(zhì),在交通事故中存在怎樣的侵權(quán)規(guī)則原則。對(duì)此,外國(guó)法律已經(jīng)有了比較完善的規(guī)定,而我國(guó)法律至今沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一、明確的規(guī)定來(lái)處理對(duì)好意同乘的責(zé)任承擔(dān),導(dǎo)致全國(guó)各地法院在行使自由裁量權(quán)的過(guò)程中權(quán)衡規(guī)范不一,裁判結(jié)果各不相同。有鑒于此,本文運(yùn)用兩起好意同乘引發(fā)的交通事故案例,對(duì)好意同乘的定義、特征、性質(zhì)以及歸責(zé)原則等進(jìn)行介紹分析,在此基礎(chǔ)上,并對(duì)好意同乘交通事故責(zé)任承擔(dān)提出自己的一些淺顯的建議。
[Abstract]:In the course of social change, there is a new phenomenon of "riding a windmill" in society. The behavior of hitchhiking is called "good riding" in legal terms. With the rapid development of the economy, the number of motor vehicles is increasing. Having to carry out the policy of daily driving of private cars with single and even numbers, it is common for people with cars to drop by their friends free of charge. There is no doubt that there are more and more incidents of passing friends along the way. Among them, our country still has no clear division of responsibility for road traffic accidents caused by good intentions, and no relevant laws have been issued. Yang Chuantang, Minister of Communications, also proposed at the two sessions on 2016: "encourage and multiply." We can also expect that more and more road traffic disputes will be caused by good intentions in the future. How to deal with the resulting road traffic accidents? Who will bear the legal responsibility? Is it possible to absolve the person on board of the responsibility because of good intentions? Therefore, the responsibility of the well-intentioned co-rider traffic accident has become an urgent problem to be solved. When there is no traffic accident during the well-intentioned co-riding process, the friendly and harmonious relationship between the vehicle supplier and the passenger can of course be maintained, but, As long as personal and property damage occurs, the social relations between the supplier and the passenger of the vehicle change from good intention to compensation of the passenger. But the good riding is different from the general infringement case, and the tortious subject in the case of good intention and ride is different. The responsibility of the object needs to be further clarified, if the vehicle supplier does not intend to do it in the event of a traffic accident, there are special circumstances in the process of causing the damage. If the occurrence of the accident is caused by the same rider or the liability of a third party, then in these cases, the assumption of the tort liability of the good will be a major challenge. This paper first gives two cases of good intentions and multiplies. On the basis of the detailed analysis of these two cases, this paper puts forward the problem of tort liability in the process of good intentions and multiplication, and wants to make a deep discussion on this problem. We need to have a detailed understanding of the relevant knowledge of the well-intentioned co-rider process. How to define the well-intentioned co-rider, what rights and obligations should be fulfilled by the vehicle supplier and the passenger in the well-intentioned co-ride process, What are the legal nature of well-intentioned traffic accidents and the principles of tort rules in traffic accidents? for this reason, foreign laws have relatively perfect provisions, but the laws of our country have not yet been unified. Clear provisions to deal with the responsibility for good will and multiplication, resulting in varying norms in the exercise of discretion by courts throughout the country, and different judicial results. This paper introduces and analyzes the definition, characteristics, nature and imputation principle of well-intentioned co-multiplication by using two cases of traffic accidents caused by well-intentioned co-multiplication. And put forward some simple suggestions to take the responsibility of traffic accident with good intention.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 彭虹;彭琪芳;;比較廣告的法律問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)商界(下半月);2008年08期

2 王美程;霍杰;;在我國(guó)侵權(quán)法中確立注意義務(wù)的原因探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年34期

3 邢要樂(lè);;論我國(guó)夫妻侵權(quán)及其責(zé)任制度的構(gòu)建[J];赤峰學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(漢文哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年07期

4 文嵐;;食品侵權(quán)責(zé)任問(wèn)題研究[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2011年S3期

5 彭芙蓉;;論新聞的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];東南傳播;2006年07期

6 吳紀(jì)樹;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)背景下侵權(quán)法的哲學(xué)使命[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

7 李軼;;試論公眾人物代言虛假?gòu)V告的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];煙臺(tái)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年01期

8 于林洋;;名人虛假?gòu)V告民事責(zé)任研究[J];玉溪師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年10期

9 唐克;;論產(chǎn)品代言人的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年11期

10 李曉秋;;論自由裁量權(quán)在停止專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任適用中的法度邊界[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 韓春樹;論好意同乘交通事故的責(zé)任承擔(dān)[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

2 王俊娥;中美校園事故侵權(quán)責(zé)任比較研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2014年

3 劉琳;微博運(yùn)營(yíng)中的侵權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制[D];湘潭大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1555372