本文選題：高壓觸電 + 人身損害　； 參考：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：高壓觸電人身損害侵權(quán)責任屬于高度危險責任的一種。通過對“中國裁判文書網(wǎng)”檢索到的案例進行分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)高壓觸電人身損害案件存在事故原因多元化、侵權(quán)主體非單一化、各部門法律規(guī)定多樣化、法院裁量差異化等現(xiàn)象。由于其自身歸責原則的特殊性,導致了實際審判中存在著諸多同案不同判現(xiàn)象,其主要原因是各級法院對法條的理解和適用存在偏差。有些法院在法規(guī)存在沖突的時候,沒有正確根據(jù)法律適用的規(guī)則尋求適當有效的法律。首先,《侵權(quán)責任法》、《民法通則》、《電力法》均對高壓觸電人身損害的責任主體進行了界定。當法條出現(xiàn)沖突時,根據(jù)“特殊法優(yōu)于一般法”、“新法優(yōu)于舊法”等規(guī)定,應(yīng)當適用《侵權(quán)責任法》,即高壓電經(jīng)營者應(yīng)當對損害承擔無過錯責任。但司法實踐中,仍有法院將《民法通則》作為裁判依據(jù),甚至有的法院仍然將已廢止的《觸電賠償解釋》作為裁判依據(jù);其次,鑒于高度危險責任適用的是無過錯責任原則,在高壓觸電人身損害侵權(quán)案件中,只要具備以下三個條件高壓電經(jīng)營者就要承擔侵權(quán)責任,而無論其是否存在過錯:(1)存在高壓電作業(yè);(2)有損害事實的發(fā)生;(3)高壓作業(yè)與損害事實之間存在因果關(guān)系。在法律有特殊規(guī)定的情況下,行為人可以主張免責。根據(jù)《侵權(quán)責任法》第73條,經(jīng)營者免責事由包括:(1)不可抗力(2)受害人故意。參考《條文理解與適用》,司法實踐中多數(shù)法院判定的受害人故意主要包括:(1)受害人利用高壓電力設(shè)施自殺或自傷行為;(2)受害人從事與高壓作業(yè)相關(guān)的犯罪行為,如盜竊或破壞高壓電力設(shè)施。但是,危險責任的基本思想在于對“不幸損害”的合理分配,除當事人故意以觸電的方式自傷、自殺以外,任何其他原因?qū)е碌挠|電損害都屬于“不幸損害”。因此高壓觸電人身損害侵權(quán)案件中,高壓電活動經(jīng)營者的免責事由“受害人故意”應(yīng)當僅僅包括受害人故意以觸電的方式自殺、自傷的行為;最后,由于高壓電引起的人身損害案件原因的多元化,往往一個案件中存在多個致害因素。在存在第三人過錯的高壓觸電侵權(quán)案件中,第三人的過錯是否能作為減輕經(jīng)營者責任的法定事由,也就是說經(jīng)營者與第三人之間是怎樣的責任承擔關(guān)系?審判實務(wù)中,通常法院根據(jù)各個行為對于發(fā)生損害結(jié)果的原因力大小來劃分各侵權(quán)主體應(yīng)承擔的責任比例,進而各自承擔責任。但《侵權(quán)責任法》第三章屬于在法律沒有特殊規(guī)定的情況下適用的一般條款,若《侵權(quán)責任法》第九章作了特別的有關(guān)減輕責任的規(guī)定,便可認定為法律對此已做出特別規(guī)定,則應(yīng)該排除第三章的適用。結(jié)合《電力法》以及《電力供應(yīng)與使用條例》相關(guān)條文規(guī)定,第三人的過錯并不是減輕經(jīng)營者責任的法定事由,但受害人與承受了損失的經(jīng)營者均有權(quán)利向第三人主張損害賠償。因此,基于第三人過錯造成的損害應(yīng)判決經(jīng)營者對第三人的過錯承擔補充責任。即在第三人賠償不能的情況下,受害人有權(quán)利要求經(jīng)營者代替第三人賠償,賠償后經(jīng)營者再依法向第三人追償。綜上,通過對案例的匯總及對相關(guān)法律的分析,高壓觸電人身損害案件的侵權(quán)責任主體——高壓電活動經(jīng)營者,應(yīng)當根據(jù)對高壓電活動的實際控制權(quán)區(qū)分為:發(fā)電企業(yè)、輸電企業(yè)、用電工廠;其次,在確定了高壓觸電致人損害應(yīng)適用無過錯責任原則的基礎(chǔ)上,作為法定免責事由之一的“受害人故意”應(yīng)僅包括受害人自殺自傷行為,而不包括受害人故意在高度危險活動保護區(qū)從事的違法犯罪行為;再次,司法實踐中法院認為可以減輕經(jīng)營者責任的兩個事由中,受害人自身過失作為減輕經(jīng)營者責任的法定事由毋庸置疑,但第三人過錯并不能成為絕對減輕經(jīng)營者責任的法定事由,相反經(jīng)營者需對第三人的過錯承擔補充責任;最后,高壓觸電人身損害賠償主要包括財產(chǎn)性賠償和精神損害賠償。財產(chǎn)性賠償又包括造成人身損害的一般賠償、造成殘疾的賠償以及造成死亡的賠償。精神損害賠償金額應(yīng)依據(jù)侵權(quán)人的主觀狀態(tài)和侵權(quán)行為、被侵權(quán)人的傷殘情況和遭受精神痛苦的情形以及侵權(quán)人的經(jīng)濟能力,在0—5萬元內(nèi)酌情確定。
[Abstract]:The tort liability of high voltage electric shock is a kind of highly dangerous liability. Through the analysis of the cases retrieved from the "Chinese referee's document network", it is found that there are various causes of accidents in the cases of high voltage electric shock, the subject of tort is not single, the legal provisions of various departments are diversified, and the discrepancy of the court is discrepant. The particularity of the principle of self imputation leads to the existence of many different cases of the same case in the actual trial. The main reason is that there is a deviation in the understanding and application of the law at all levels. Some courts do not seek appropriate and effective laws according to the rules applicable to the law when there is conflict in the laws. First, < tort law >, < The general principles of the civil law and the electric power law have defined the subject of responsibility for the personal damage of high voltage electric shock. When the law article conflicts, according to the provisions of "special law is superior to the general law", "new law is superior to the old law", the law of tort liability should be applied, that is, the operator of high voltage electricity should bear no fault liability for damage. But in judicial practice, there is still law The court takes the general rules of the civil law as the basis of the referee, and even some courts still use the abolished interpretation of "compensation for electric shock" as the basis of the referee; secondly, in view of the principle of no fault liability applicable to high risk liability, in the case of tort of high voltage electric shock, the operators of high voltage electricity shall bear the liability for infringement in the case of the following three conditions. No matter whether or not it has fault: (1) there is high voltage electricity operation; (2) the occurrence of damage fact; (3) there is a causal relationship between the high pressure operation and the fact of damage. In the case of special law, the perpetrator may claim exemption. According to the tort liability law seventy-third, the operator's disclaimer includes: (1) force majeure (2) the victim intentionally. Referring to the understanding and application of provisions, the victims of most courts in judicial practice mainly include: (1) the victims use high voltage power facilities to commit suicide or self injury; (2) the victims engage in crimes related to high pressure operations, such as theft or destruction of high voltage power facilities. However, the basic idea of dangerous liability lies in the "unfortunate loss". The rational distribution of the harm ", except the parties intentionally hurt themselves by means of electric shock, and any other cause of electric shock damage is" unfortunate damage ". In the end, because of the diversification of the cause of personal injury caused by high voltage electricity, there are often many factors in a case. In the case of the third person's fault, whether the third person's fault can be used as a legal cause to mitigate the responsibility of the operator, that is to say, the operator and the third person. What is the relationship between responsibility and responsibility? In the trial practice, the court usually divides the liability proportion of the infringers according to the size of the cause of the damage. But the third chapter of the tort liability law belongs to the general clause in the case where the law does not have special provisions, if < The ninth chapter of the tort liability law, which has made special provisions concerning the reduction of liability, may be found that the law has made a special provision for this, and the application of the third chapter should be excluded. The fault of the third party is not a legal cause to mitigate the responsibility of the operator, but the victim is not the legal cause of reducing the liability of the operator. The operator who has suffered the loss has the right to claim damages to the third party. Therefore, the damage caused by the third party's fault should be decided by the operator to take the supplementary responsibility for the fault of the third party. That is, the victim has the right to claim the compensation for the third party by the operator in the case of third compensation, and the reparation operator will then reclaim it in accordance with the law. Third people recourse. To sum up, through the summary of the cases and the analysis of relevant laws, the main body of tort liability of high voltage electric shock cases, the operator of high voltage electric activity, should be divided into power enterprises, transmission enterprises and electrical plants according to the actual control right of high voltage power activities. Secondly, the damage caused by high voltage electric shock is determined. On the basis of the principle of no fault liability, as one of the legal exemptions, "the victim intentional" should only include the victim's suicide self injury, but not the offense committed by the victim in the highly dangerous activity protection area. Again, the court of law believes that the two reasons for reducing the liability of the operator in the judicial practice are considered. In addition, the victim's own negligence is no doubt as the legal cause of reducing the responsibility of the operator, but the third party's fault can not be the legal cause that absolutely mitigates the responsibility of the operator. On the contrary, the operator needs to take the supplementary responsibility for the fault of the third party. Finally, the compensation for the personal damage of the high voltage electric shock includes the property compensation and the compensation for the mental damage. Property compensation includes general compensation for personal injury, compensation for disability and compensation for death. The amount of compensation for mental damage should be determined on the basis of the subjective state and tort of the infringer, the situation of the tortfeasor, the situation of suffering from the tortfeasor and the economic ability of the tortfeasor, as well as the economic ability of the tortfeasor, within 0 to 50 thousand yuan.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923;D922.181

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 傅強;;高壓電致害案件的責任分配問題研究[J];西北大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2014年06期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前3條

1 黃燕寧;高壓觸電人身侵權(quán)責任研究[D];廣西大學;2016年

2 陳怡平;高壓觸電人身損害賠償責任研究[D];華東政法大學;2014年

3 侯志鵬;觸電侵權(quán)問題研究[D];山東大學;2010年

，

本文編號：2054108