本文選題：高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任 + 立法模式��； 參考：《中央民族大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2009年12月通過(guò)的《中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》設(shè)專(zhuān)章第九章規(guī)定了高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任,共用九個(gè)法條初步建立了高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任體系,特別是第69條,被學(xué)界稱(chēng)之為高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的一般條款,具有兜底性、開(kāi)放性、法律解釋性功能,法官可通過(guò)對(duì)其進(jìn)行解釋,彌補(bǔ)具體列舉式的不足,適應(yīng)科技的發(fā)展和社會(huì)的進(jìn)步,以滿(mǎn)足對(duì)新出現(xiàn)的高度危險(xiǎn)類(lèi)型調(diào)整和規(guī)制的需要。然而立法的開(kāi)放性和法律的確定性是一對(duì)矛盾,在實(shí)踐中,由于對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的規(guī)范意旨、價(jià)值取向、內(nèi)涵和外延理解得不準(zhǔn)確,往往會(huì)不當(dāng)適用高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任,具體表現(xiàn)為:盲目擴(kuò)大高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的范圍,適用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不統(tǒng)一,片面地適用高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任。此外在適用中還會(huì)出現(xiàn)對(duì)責(zé)任主體認(rèn)定不清,限額賠償?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)差異大等問(wèn)題。產(chǎn)生上述問(wèn)題最根本的原因皆是對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任中"高度危險(xiǎn)"這一核心要素的界定不明確,筆者希望通過(guò)對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的歷史沿革,價(jià)值取向,國(guó)外的立法趨勢(shì)進(jìn)行分析,對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任進(jìn)行解釋,以明確"高度危險(xiǎn)"的內(nèi)涵,使高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任在合理的范圍內(nèi)適用。文章由引言、正文、結(jié)語(yǔ)三部分組成,正文包括四個(gè)章節(jié)。第一章是高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的歷史沿革和價(jià)值取向。介紹了危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任在各國(guó)的形成過(guò)程,并提出我高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的價(jià)值取向是實(shí)現(xiàn)分配正義,以及高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的法理依據(jù)。第二章是我國(guó)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的基本內(nèi)容和適用中存在的問(wèn)題。介紹了高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則和構(gòu)成要件,對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任存在爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行解析,提出了高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任適用中存在的問(wèn)題,包括適用范圍混亂,責(zé)任主體不清以及限額賠償適用范圍窄。第三章提出高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任中"高度危險(xiǎn)"的內(nèi)涵。包括必備要素和非必備要素。運(yùn)用了動(dòng)態(tài)體系理論的觀點(diǎn),并結(jié)合列舉要素式所考慮的要素,其中必備要素包括損害的不可避免性、損害的嚴(yán)重性以及造成損害原因的異常性;非必備要素包括危險(xiǎn)行為進(jìn)行的場(chǎng)所、危險(xiǎn)行為及危險(xiǎn)物的既定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及該行為的社會(huì)價(jià)值。第四章介紹了高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的外部邊界,包括產(chǎn)品責(zé)任、違反安全保障義務(wù)責(zé)任、環(huán)境污染責(zé)任和物件損害責(zé)任。通過(guò)比較論證的方式,明確了這些責(zé)任類(lèi)型與高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的區(qū)別,以避免在具體適用中造成混淆,盲目擴(kuò)大高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任的適用范圍。結(jié)語(yǔ)部分對(duì)上文進(jìn)行了總結(jié),在對(duì)高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任進(jìn)行界定過(guò)程中,應(yīng)以"高度危險(xiǎn)"作為前提確定高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任,以外部邊界排除相似侵權(quán)責(zé)任的適用。
[Abstract]:Chapter IX of the Chapter IX of the Tort liability Law of the people's Republic of China, adopted in December 2009, provides for a high degree of risk liability, and the sharing of nine articles establishes a system of high risk liability, in particular article 69. The general clause of high risk responsibility, which is called by the academic circles, has the function of bottom, openness and legal interpretation. Judges can make up for the deficiency of specific enumeration by interpreting it, and adapt to the development of science and technology and the progress of society. To meet the new high risk types of adjustment and regulation needs. However, the openness of legislation and the certainty of law are a pair of contradictions. In practice, due to the inaccurate understanding of the normative intent, value orientation, connotation and extension of the high risk responsibility, it is often not appropriate to apply the high risk responsibility. The concrete manifestation is: blindly expands the scope of the high danger responsibility, the applicable standard is not unified, applies the high danger responsibility one-sidedly. In addition, there are still some problems in the application, such as unclear identification of the subject of responsibility and large difference in the standard of the limitation compensation. The most fundamental reason for the above problems is that the definition of "high risk" in the high risk responsibility is not clear. The author hopes to analyze the historical evolution, value orientation and foreign legislative trend of the high risk responsibility. In order to clarify the connotation of "high danger" and make it applicable within a reasonable range, the high risk liability is explained. The article consists of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The text includes four chapters. The first chapter is the historical evolution and value orientation of high risk responsibility. This paper introduces the forming process of dangerous responsibility in various countries, and points out that the value orientation of our high risk responsibility is the legal basis for the realization of distributive justice and the high risk responsibility. The second chapter is the basic content of our country's high risk responsibility and the problems existing in its application. This paper introduces the imputation principle and constitutive elements of the high risk liability, analyzes the controversial problems of the high risk liability, and puts forward the problems existing in the application of the high risk liability, including the confusion of the scope of application. The subject of liability is unclear and the scope of limitation compensation is narrow. The third chapter puts forward the connotation of "high danger" in high risk responsibility. Including essential elements and non-essential elements. The author applies the viewpoint of dynamic system theory and enumerates the elements considered in the form of elements, among which the necessary elements include the inevitability of damage, the severity of damage and the abnormal cause of damage. Non-essential elements include the place where the dangerous behavior is carried out, the established standards of the dangerous behavior and its social value. The fourth chapter introduces the external boundary of high risk liability, including product liability, breach of safety and security obligation, environmental pollution liability and object damage liability. By means of comparison and argumentation, this paper clarifies the difference between these types of liability and the high risk responsibility, so as to avoid confusion in the concrete application and blindly expand the scope of application of the high risk liability. The conclusion part summarizes the above, in the process of defining the high risk liability, we should take the "high danger" as the premise to determine the high danger responsibility, and exclude the application of similar tort liability with the external boundary.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 苑玲艷;高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任適用研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2012年

2 韓鴦;論電力立法中的“電網(wǎng)侵權(quán)責(zé)任”[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

3 丁寧;論地下挖掘行為人的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

4 程昭文;論“高度危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任”的司法適用[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

5 徐衛(wèi)紅;鐵路事故人身?yè)p害賠償責(zé)任研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2009年

6 王晗;無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

7 曾曉敏;侵權(quán)法上的危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1846201