本文關(guān)鍵詞：論見義勇為行為人權(quán)益的民法保護(hù)　出處：《哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 見義勇為 侵權(quán)責(zé)任 無因管理

【摘要】：見義勇為乃受我國主流價值觀鼓勵和倡導(dǎo)的道德行為,我國法律未對見義勇為行為作出直接的、系統(tǒng)的規(guī)定,只是散見于《民法總則》、《民法通則》、《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》、《民法總則》和地方性法規(guī)。實(shí)踐中存在著見義勇為行為得不到認(rèn)定、行為人受侵害而權(quán)益得不到保護(hù)、行為人致?lián)p卻承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任等情形,致使較為普遍地存在著不敢見義勇為或者見義勇為者反被誤解等突出的社會問題,見義勇為之社會價值受到社會現(xiàn)實(shí)的嚴(yán)峻考驗(yàn)。見義勇為是指行為人基于非己利益為防止正在進(jìn)行的緊急侵害行為而實(shí)施的危難救助行為,其民法屬性為緊急救助行為。見義勇為行為人在見義勇為過程中遭受的損失,依法享有對侵權(quán)人的侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán)和對受益人的無因管理請求權(quán)。二者因法律關(guān)系主體不一且因同一侵害事實(shí)發(fā)生,排斥請求權(quán)競合。見義勇為行為人應(yīng)優(yōu)先選擇對侵權(quán)人的侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán),在沒有侵權(quán)人、侵權(quán)人下落不明或者沒有賠償能力時,見義勇為行為人可行使對受益人的無因管理請求權(quán)。民法賦予見義勇為行為人對受益人請求承擔(dān)補(bǔ)償責(zé)任的方式,受益人承擔(dān)的補(bǔ)償責(zé)任和侵權(quán)人的侵權(quán)責(zé)任乃不真正連帶責(zé)任,最終的責(zé)任主體是侵權(quán)人,應(yīng)賦予受益人在侵權(quán)人出現(xiàn)或者有賠償能力時對其追償?shù)臋?quán)利。見義勇為行為人從侵權(quán)人或受益人處獲得的救濟(jì),均存在著請求權(quán)主張上的困難,受益人補(bǔ)償使其獲得的救濟(jì)有限,向侵權(quán)人主張請求權(quán)又會受制于侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件成就之舉證。要切實(shí)保障見義勇為行為人的權(quán)益,應(yīng)跳出民法視野,宜由國家設(shè)立見義勇為救助基金向見義勇為行為人先行賠付,再由該基金替代見義勇為行為人向侵權(quán)人、受益人主張賠償或補(bǔ)償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Courage for good is a moral act encouraged and advocated by the mainstream values of our country. The laws of our country do not make direct and systematic provisions on the act of doing good deeds, but they are scattered in the General principles of Civil Law and the General principles of Civil Law. "Tort liability Law", "General principles of Civil Law" and local laws and regulations. In practice, there are such situations as the act of doing justice is not recognized, the actor is infringed and his rights and interests are not protected, and the actor is liable for damages. As a result, there are some prominent social problems, such as not daring to act boldly or those who do so without being misunderstood. The social value of righteous courage is severely tested by the social reality. The act of righteous courage refers to the act of distress and relief that the actor implements in order to prevent the ongoing emergency violations based on the non-self-interest. Its civil law attribute is emergency relief. According to the law, they have the right to claim damages for infringement and the claim to the beneficiary without cause. The two rights are different because of the legal relationship and because of the same fact of infringement. Exclusion of the right to claim concurrence. The actor should give priority to the tortfeasor's right to claim damages for infringement, in the absence of the infringer, the whereabouts of the infringer or no compensation capacity. The actor of righteous courage may exercise the right of claim to the beneficiary's management without cause. The civil law endows the actor of the act of righteous courage with the way to bear the responsibility of compensation to the beneficiary's request. The compensation liability of beneficiary and the tort liability of infringer are not really joint and several liability, and the ultimate responsibility subject is the infringer. The beneficiary should be given the right of recourse when the infringer appears or has the ability to compensate. The relief obtained from the tortfeasor or the beneficiary has difficulties in claiming the right of claim. The beneficiary's compensation makes him obtain limited relief, and claims the right of claim to the infringer will be subject to the proof of the constitutive elements of tort liability. In order to effectively protect the rights and interests of the righteous doer, he should jump out of the scope of civil law. It is advisable for the state to set up a fund for the aid of the righteous bravery to compensate the actor in advance, and then the fund shall replace the actor of the act of righteous courage to the infringer, and the beneficiary shall claim the liability of compensation or compensation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 楊立新;王毅純;;我國善意救助者法的立法與司法——以國外好撒馬利亞人法為考察[J];求是學(xué)刊;2013年03期

2 徐國棟;;見義勇為立法比較研究[J];河北法學(xué);2006年07期

3 汪敬華;陶晶;;見義勇為行為的民法保護(hù)[J];臺聲.新視角;2005年07期

4 蒙旭,何庚檑;論公平責(zé)任[J];南寧師范高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

5 羅慧連,林金貴;見義勇為行為與補(bǔ)償問題研究[J];安康師專學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

6 賈邦俊;見義勇為行為的民法透視[J];河北法學(xué);2003年01期

7 方向東;見義勇為的立法評價與思考[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

8 袁兆春;對見義勇為立法的理性思考[J];齊魯學(xué)刊;2002年01期

9 張海峽,白云飛,黃曉扣;緊急救助論——見義勇為立法的民法法理依據(jù)[J];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2000年06期

，

本文編號：1368783