本文選題：分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則 + 公平責(zé)任��； 參考：《浙江財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文是對(duì)侵權(quán)法中分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則法律屬性和責(zé)任類型的研究。分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則是指在雙方對(duì)于損害的發(fā)生均無過錯(cuò)時(shí),根據(jù)實(shí)際情況,由雙方分擔(dān)損失的一項(xiàng)法律制度。分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則具備一定的抽象性、模糊性,而且在司法裁判中可能被濫用。但在現(xiàn)今社會(huì)背景下,其能夠平衡利益、有效實(shí)現(xiàn)法律救濟(jì)、符合我國(guó)國(guó)情和傳統(tǒng)思想觀念、具有道德上的引導(dǎo)意義等諸多基礎(chǔ),仍是一項(xiàng)值得重視的法律制度。對(duì)于分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的研究,不僅可以規(guī)范分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的解釋和適用,保證司法裁判的公正合理,還能使?fàn)幾h問題統(tǒng)屬于一個(gè)法律解釋、適用體系,為我國(guó)民法典的編纂提供支持。第一章,首先明確界定侵權(quán)法中分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的含義以及簡(jiǎn)要介紹分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則在比較法上的立法例,詳述分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則在我國(guó)立法上的演進(jìn)歷程。然后,通過實(shí)證研究方法,歸納分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則在司法裁判中的宣示性引用和錯(cuò)誤適用的問題。最后,通過分析我國(guó)分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的法律實(shí)踐問題,總結(jié)問題背后法院對(duì)于分擔(dān)損失法律屬性認(rèn)識(shí)不清、責(zé)任類型區(qū)分不準(zhǔn)的不足。據(jù)此,為下文的論述提出問題,為進(jìn)一步闡述分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的屬性和責(zé)任類型先予鋪墊。第二章重點(diǎn)分析分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的法律屬性,明確其屬于公平責(zé)任。首先,以學(xué)術(shù)爭(zhēng)議觀點(diǎn)的歸納總結(jié)為前提,分析分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則屬性研究的思路與爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。對(duì)于分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的屬性,存在四種觀點(diǎn),即認(rèn)為其屬于歸責(zé)原則的一種、認(rèn)為其屬于法定補(bǔ)償之債,認(rèn)為其只是分擔(dān)損失的規(guī)則而不屬于歸責(zé)原則、認(rèn)為其屬于無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任的范疇。其次,從解釋論角度論證分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則屬于公平責(zé)任。對(duì)于侵權(quán)責(zé)任范圍的界定以及《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中的“適當(dāng)補(bǔ)償”是否屬于責(zé)任等問題,不能做最淺層的歷史解釋和詞語(yǔ)對(duì)比,應(yīng)當(dāng)充分回溯到侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歷史起源,對(duì)比我國(guó)立法的各個(gè)階段,運(yùn)用最準(zhǔn)確的解釋論方法解釋分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的法律屬性。最后,從分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則屬于法定補(bǔ)償義務(wù)或是公平責(zé)任的爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)入手,通過對(duì)兩種定性的比較,論證公平責(zé)任解釋的優(yōu)先性。第三章詳述公平責(zé)任在分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則具體類型中的確立。介紹侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中關(guān)于分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的類型化規(guī)定。借助實(shí)證研究的方法,分析公平責(zé)任在分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則具體制度中的優(yōu)先適用,構(gòu)建起分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的基本責(zé)任類型結(jié)構(gòu),進(jìn)一步明確公平責(zé)任在我國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的地位。分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的基本框架是以一般條款為基礎(chǔ),以類型化規(guī)定為補(bǔ)充。從《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的規(guī)定來看,第二十四條規(guī)定屬于分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的一般條款,第二十三條、第三十一條和第三十三條和第八十七條屬于類型化的規(guī)定。整體而言,我國(guó)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對(duì)分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的規(guī)定較為簡(jiǎn)單,應(yīng)當(dāng)逐步完善。第四章主要論述了分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的制度完善措施。文章結(jié)合現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定和民法典編纂的立法背景,從分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則適用范圍的擴(kuò)張性解釋、引入動(dòng)態(tài)系統(tǒng)論進(jìn)行綜合認(rèn)定和分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則的立法設(shè)計(jì)等三個(gè)方面,對(duì)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中的分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則進(jìn)行改進(jìn)和完善。
[Abstract]:This article is a study of the legal attributes and types of liability for the sharing of loss rules in the tort law. The rule of sharing loss refers to a legal system of sharing the loss according to the actual situation when both sides have no fault in the occurrence of the damage. But in the present social background, it is still a legal system which is worth paying attention to, which can balance the interests, realize the legal remedies effectively, conform to the national conditions and traditional ideas of our country, have the moral guiding significance and so on. To ensure the justice and rationality of the judicial referee, it can also make the dispute issue belong to a legal interpretation, the application system, and provide support for the compilation of the civil code of our country. In the first chapter, the first chapter clearly defines the meaning of the rules of sharing the loss in the tort law and briefly introduces the legislation in comparison with the law of sharing the loss, and details the rules of sharing the loss in me. The course of the evolution of national law. Then, through the empirical research method, it summarizes the declarative reference and the wrong application of the sharing loss rules in the judicial referees. Finally, through the analysis of the legal practice problems of our country's sharing of loss rules, it is concluded that the court is not aware of the legal attributes of sharing the loss, and the types of responsibility are not differentiated. The second chapter focuses on the analysis of the legal attributes of the sharing of loss rules, and makes clear that it belongs to the fair responsibility. First, the study of the attributes of the sharing loss rules is analyzed on the premise of the general conclusion of the academic dispute viewpoint. There are four views on the attribute of sharing the rule of loss, that is, it belongs to the principle of imputation, that it belongs to the legal compensation debt, that it is only the rule of sharing the loss, not the principle of imputation, and that it belongs to the model of no fault liability. Secondly, from the angle of explanation, the rule of sharing loss is proved to be the genera of the sharing of the rules of loss. As to the fair liability, the definition of the scope of the liability for tort and whether the "appropriate compensation" in the tort liability law belongs to the responsibility, and not the most shallow historical explanation and the contrast of words, should be fully traced back to the historical origin of the tort liability, comparing the various stages of the legislation in China, and using the most accurate interpretation method to explain the points. In the end, starting with the dispute points of the legal compensation obligation or the fair responsibility of the sharing of the loss rules, the priority of the interpretation of the fair liability is demonstrated by the comparison of the two kinds of qualitative comparisons. The third chapter details the establishment of the fair liability in the specific types of the sharing of the loss rules. By using the method of empirical research, this paper analyzes the priority application of fair liability in the specific system of sharing loss rules, constructs the basic type of responsibility structure to share the rules of loss, and further clarified the status of the fair liability in the tort liability law of China. The basic framework of the sharing of the rules of the loss of losses is based on general terms. On the basis of the provisions of the typed provisions. From the provisions of the tort liability law, the twenty-fourth provisions are the general terms, twenty-third, thirty-first and thirty-third and eighty-seventh of the rules for the sharing of the loss rules. The fourth chapter mainly discusses the system improvement measures to share the rules of loss. The article combines the legislative background of the existing legal provisions and the compiling of the civil code, from the expansionary interpretation of the scope of the applicable scope of the sharing of the rules of the loss of loss, and the introduction of the three aspects of the legislative design of the comprehensive identification and the sharing of the loss rules by the introduction of the dynamic system theory. We should improve and perfect the sharing loss rule in tort liability law.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王軼;;作為債之獨(dú)立類型的法定補(bǔ)償義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)研究;2014年02期

2 田土城;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》之損害補(bǔ)償條款研究[J];學(xué)習(xí)論壇;2014年02期

3 海爾穆特·庫(kù)齊奧;張玉東;;動(dòng)態(tài)系統(tǒng)論導(dǎo)論[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

4 顧博;田巍;;論民事補(bǔ)償制度的適用條件[J];河北法學(xué);2013年06期

5 高留志;;論民事補(bǔ)償制度[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年11期

6 郭明瑞;;關(guān)于公平責(zé)任的性質(zhì)及適用[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2012年05期

7 劉保玉;;監(jiān)護(hù)人責(zé)任若干爭(zhēng)議問題探討[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年03期

8 陳本寒;陳英;;公平責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的再探討——兼評(píng)我國(guó)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第24條的理解與適用[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2012年02期

9 曹險(xiǎn)峰;;論公平責(zé)任的適用——以對(duì)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第24條的解釋論研讀為中心[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年02期

10 楊代雄;;適用范圍視角下民事責(zé)任能力之反思——兼評(píng)《中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第32條[J];法商研究;2011年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李挺;侵權(quán)法公平分擔(dān)損失規(guī)則研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1779594