【摘要】：新公布的《中華人民共和國民法總則》在第九章規(guī)定了訴訟時效制度,可見訴訟時效制度的重要程度。隨著人們對人權(quán)理論的認知逐漸提高,越來越多的人開始關(guān)注自身的合法權(quán)益,尤其是與生命健康息息相關(guān)的人身權(quán)益。在人身權(quán)利受到不法侵害時,人們通常選擇以法律武器維護自身利益。人身損害賠償案件愈發(fā)多見,且種類多樣,案情復雜。而與其相對的,是我國現(xiàn)行法中關(guān)于人身損害賠償訴訟時效的立法并不完備。具體來講,對于適用范圍、訴訟時效的起算、時效期間的長短等問題均未得到很好的解決,以至于實際運用中顯現(xiàn)出許多問題。本文即是對人身損害賠償訴訟時效制度立法完善的探討。第一章從時效制度的價值、特點以及現(xiàn)行法律相關(guān)規(guī)定三個方面對其進行概括性的闡述。第二章對人身損害賠償?shù)钠鹚泓c進行了介紹,通過典型案例反應可法實踐中的做法,介紹了學術(shù)界的客觀標準、主觀標準和請求權(quán)可行使理論兒種觀點;而從國外立法對起算點的經(jīng)驗,看出越來越多的國家選擇在權(quán)利人現(xiàn)實上可行使權(quán)利時起算。最后對人身損害訴訟時效的立法完善上肯定了從權(quán)利人可行使權(quán)利時起算。第三章介紹了人身損害訴訟時效期間,從司法實踐角度,以及學術(shù)界對我國人身損害賠償?shù)挠^點,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)我國的人身損害訴訟時效期間過短,不利于對當事人權(quán)利的保護,而國際上對人身損害賠償訴訟時效期間的規(guī)定普遍較長。建議人身損害賠償訴訟時效應該予以延長至10年,而對于人身損害賠償建議取消適用最長訴訟時效制度。第四章介紹違約與侵權(quán)訴訟時效的適用,列舉了國際上違約與侵權(quán)競合時的做法以及學術(shù)界的理論。提出違約與侵權(quán)的人身損害賠償訴訟時效應該一體化,因為兩種責任承擔方式的差異并不明顯。第五章列舉了交通事故、環(huán)境污染、醫(yī)療損害以及未成年遭受性侵害的特殊人身損害類型,具體包括:在交通事故人身損害賠償訴訟時效中,介紹了交通事故損害賠償時效起算點的確定,而對于后繼損失訴訟時效的計算,應在可以確定全部損失數(shù)額之后開始時效期間的計時;在環(huán)境侵權(quán)人身損害訴訟時效中,突出環(huán)境侵權(quán)因果關(guān)系難以斷定這一問題對訴訟時效的影響,應當是自權(quán)利人知道且應當知道權(quán)利受到侵害,并明確加害人及確定損害由其引起時起算,而對于那些潛伏期長于二十年最長時效期間的環(huán)境侵權(quán),可不適用最長訴訟時效制度。醫(yī)療損害賠償訴訟時效中,起算點的確定則應本著保護患者這一弱勢群體的精神,盡可能不運用“應當知道”來推測,把標準細化為從患者所受損害被發(fā)現(xiàn)或確診,并能確定損害后果與醫(yī)療機構(gòu)的治療行為存在因果關(guān)系時起算。而對于未成年受到性侵害的訴訟時效建議從受害人年滿21周歲,且脫離共同家庭生活時起算。
[Abstract]:The newly published General principles of Civil Law of the people's Republic of China stipulate the system of limitation of action in Chapter 9, which shows the importance of the system of limitation of action. With the gradual improvement of human rights theory, more and more people begin to pay attention to their legitimate rights and interests, especially the personal rights and interests which are closely related to life and health. When the personal rights are infringed unlawfully, people usually choose to defend their own interests with legal weapons. Personal injury compensation cases more and more, and the variety of complex cases. On the other hand, the legislation on limitation of action for personal injury in the current law of our country is not complete. Specifically, the problems of the scope of application, the beginning of the limitation period and the length of the limitation period have not been well solved, so that a lot of problems appear in the practical application. This article is a probe into the perfection of the statute of limitations system of personal injury compensation. The first chapter expounds the limitation system from three aspects: its value, characteristics and relevant provisions of the current law. The second chapter introduces the starting point of compensation for personal injury, through the typical case reaction can be done in practice, introduced the academic objective criteria, subjective standards and claims can be exercised in theory. From the experience of foreign legislation, we can see that more and more countries choose to exercise their rights in reality. Finally, the legislation of the statute of limitations for personal injury is confirmed from the time when the right holder can exercise the right. The third chapter introduces the period of limitation of action for personal injury, from the angle of judicial practice, as well as the point of view of academic circles on the compensation for personal injury in our country, we can find that the period of limitation of action for personal injury in our country is too short, which is not conducive to the protection of the rights of the parties. However, the provisions of limitation period for personal injury compensation are generally long in the world. It is suggested that the limitation of action for personal injury should be extended to 10 years, while the system of maximum limitation of action should be abolished for compensation for personal injury. The fourth chapter introduces the application of the limitation of breach of contract and tort, enumerates the international practice of concurrence of breach of contract and tort and the theory of academia. It is suggested that the limitation of action for personal injury should be integrated, because the difference between the two kinds of liability is not obvious. The fifth chapter enumerates the traffic accident, the environmental pollution, the medical treatment damage as well as the minor suffered the special personal injury type, including: in the traffic accident personal injury compensation action prescription, This paper introduces the determination of the starting point of limitation period for compensation for traffic accident damage, and for the calculation of limitation period of subsequent loss, the timing of the period of limitation period should begin after the total amount of loss can be determined, and in the statute of limitations of action for personal injury of environmental tort, Highlighting the causality of environmental tort is difficult to determine the impact of this problem on the statute of limitations. It should be calculated from the time when the obligee knows and should know that his rights have been infringed, and clearly defines the perpetrator and determines that the damage is caused by it. For those environmental tort whose incubation period is longer than 20 years, the maximum limitation period system can not be applied. In the limitation of action for medical damages, the starting point should be determined in the spirit of protecting the vulnerable group of patients, and should not use "should know" as far as possible to speculate, and refine the standard to be found or diagnosed from the damage suffered by the patient. And it can determine the causality between the damage and the treatment behavior of the medical institution. The statute of limitations for underage sexual assault begins when the victim reaches the age of 21 and is separated from common family life.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 梁慧星;;《中華人民共和國民法總則(草案)》:解讀、評論和修改建議[J];華東政法大學學報;2016年05期

2 葉名怡;;違約與侵權(quán)競合實益之反思[J];法學家;2015年03期

3 高圣平;;訴訟時效立法中的幾個問題[J];法學論壇;2015年02期

4 霍海紅;;訴訟時效延長規(guī)則之反省[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2012年03期

5 汪淵智;;侵權(quán)訴訟時效五論[J];政法論叢;2011年02期

6 鄭永寬;;訴訟時效強制性的反思[J];廈門大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年04期

7 艾爾肯;方博;;我國醫(yī)療損害賠償案件法律適用問題研究報告[J];河北法學;2010年02期

8 霍海紅;;證明責任配置裁量權(quán)之反思[J];法學研究;2010年01期

9 王慶豐;;產(chǎn)品責任與合同責任競合探析[J];政法論壇;2009年01期

10 宋曉明;劉竹梅;張雪is;;《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理民事案件適用訴訟時效制度若干問題的規(guī)定》的理解與適用[J];法律適用;2008年11期

，

本文編號：2224587