侵权责任方式与归责事由、归责原则的关系

违反民事义务的性质决定了民事责任方式与归责原则。归责事由与归责原则既有联系,又有区别。《侵权责任法》规定了多种侵权责任方式,其归责事由与归责原则应当随之发生相应的变化。赔偿损失一般适用过错责任,法律有特别规定的,适用过错推定责任或者无过错责任。恢复原状是赔偿损失的特殊方法,其适用的归责原则与赔偿损失适用的归责原则没有区别。停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险与返还财产适用无过错责任(不问侵权人有无过错)。赔礼道歉、消除影响与恢复名誉适用过错责任。     

略论侵权责任构成及归责原则

关于侵权责任构成及其归责原则在学术界颇存争议,一般认为,侵权责任构成要件包括损害事实、因果关系、过错等要素;过错责任原则作为民法的一个基本原则,也是侵权法中最基本的归责原则,对于损害赔偿责任,须以过错为责任的构成要件。我国民法通则第１０６条第２款规定：“公民、法人由于过错侵害国家的、集体的财产,侵害他人的财产、人身的,应当承担民事责任。”同时又规定：“承担民事责任的方式有停止侵害;排除妨碍;消除危险;返还财产;恢复原状;修理、重做、更换;赔偿损失;支付违约金;消除影响、恢复名誉;赔礼道歉。除了修…     

受教育权的性质及其保护

【裁判要旨】不让义务教育阶段的子女上学主要表现为不作为形式的侵权,适用侵犯受教育权的无过错责任,目的在于恢复个人对其绝对权利的圆满支配状态。在构成要件上不需要考虑侵权人的主观过错,只需要非法妨碍了权利人行使受教育权即可,表现为一种防御功能。责任形式主要包括停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、消除影响、恢复名誉、赔礼道歉等。     

浅论刑事附带民事诉讼中的精神损害赔偿

一．刑事附带民事诉讼精神损害赔偿的现状 （一）刑事附带民事诉讼精神损害赔偿的立法现状我国民法通则第120条规定：”公民的姓名权、肖像权、名誉权、荣誉权受到侵害的，有权要求停止侵害、恢复名誉、消除影响、赔礼道歉，并可以要求赔偿损失。”2001年3月8日最高人民法院《关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》对精神损害赔偿也作出了肯定性的明确规定：”自然人因下列人格权利遭受非法侵害，     

试论精神损害赔偿数额的确定问题

我国民法通则第120条规定：“公民的姓名权、肖像权、名誉权、荣誉权受到侵害的，有权要求停止侵害，恢复名誉，消除影响，赔礼道歉，并可以要求赔偿损失。法人的名称权、名誉权、荣誉权受到侵害的，适用前款规定。”     

物上请求权的诉权与物权基础

一、问题意识 自<民法通则>中规定"民事责任"这一章至今已有二十余载.是否保留这一中国特色,在物权法起草过程中,又成为焦点.赞成民事责任立法者提出不规定物上请求权,将之并入侵权法,在侵权责任编专节规定侵权责任形式,其中规定一条:停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、返还财产不以侵害人有过错为要件.     

谈精神损害赔偿的几个问题

我国民法通则第一百二十条规定：“公民的姓名权、肖像权、名誉权、荣誉权受到侵害的,有权要求停止侵害,恢复名誉,消除影响,赔礼道歉,并可以要求赔偿损失”,“法人的名称权、名誉权、荣誉权受到侵害的适用前款规定。”这一民事立法,确立了我国精神损害赔偿的法律制...     

安全保障义务:属性识别与责任分配——兼评《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条

《侵权责任法》第37条第1款是违反安全保障义务的过错责任之规范基础,其设置于该法第6条第1款过错责任一般条款之后是过错责任从一般到具体的规范逻辑范式。侵权法的功能主要为救济与预防,故宜将第37条"造成他人损害"修改为"侵害他人民事权益",从而为停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险等责任方式的司法适用提供通道。为充分救济损害,宜认可安全保障义务具有法定义务与合同义务的双重属性。根据补充责任制度的内在逻辑,第37条第2款的适用范围应限缩为"第三人的主观故意+安全保障义务人的主观过失",进而在立法上明确补充责任人承担责任后可向第三人追偿的法权结构。对《侵权责任法》第37条的检讨,可以作为完善《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条的基础。     

谈几种专利侵权责任的适用

目前我国专利法及有关司法解释中规定的专利侵权责任分为两种:非财产责任和财产责任。 我国专利法中并没有规定非财产责任,实践中适用的是民法通则第一百一十八条的规定,即停止侵害、消除影响。首先谈谈停止侵害。该责任就是我们通常说的禁令,它禁止的是将来的一种行为,是专利     

刑事损害赔偿范围应扩大

在我国是否应该实行精神损害赔偿?传统民法一般只规定对损害财产给予赔偿。《民法通则》认为人身和人格权利受到侵害也可以要求赔偿损失,因此,在第120条规定公民的姓名权、肖像权、名誉权、荣誉权受到损害的,除有权要求停止侵害、恢复名誉、消除影响、赔礼道歉外,还可以要求赔偿损失。从而初步奠定了我国在一定范围内实行精神损害赔偿制度的基础,无疑是我国立法上的一个重大突破。然而我国的刑法却不承认因犯罪行为所导致的精神损害赔偿。例如,刑事诉讼法第53条规定:“被害人由于被告人的犯罪行为而遭受物质损失的,在刑事诉讼过程中,有权提起刑事附带民事诉讼。”可见.它把包括侵害公民名誉权、荣誉权在内所致的精神损害赔偿排除在刑事附带     

Police Shootings and the Role of Tort

In Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex , the House of Lords ruled that a civil claim in trespass to the person may be sustained against an individual police officer in respect of a fatal shooting, in circumstances where the officer had already been acquitted in criminal proceedings and where liability to compensate in respect of all losses had been conceded. Two members of the majority clearly ruled that trespass torts may have a vindicatory purpose which survives a concession of liability to compensate, thus deepening the connection between tort, and the protection of fundamental rights, and suggesting an intriguing distinction between the functions of civil and criminal law.     

非损害赔偿侵权责任方式的法理与实践

我国采取物权请求权与侵权请求权竞合的模式,侵权责任法亦承载预防损害的功能。依功能定位的不同,八种侵权责任方式可划分为损害预防与损害赔偿两大类,停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险同属非损害赔偿责任方式。在现代社会中,妨害与损害概念的趋同性造成了许多学术误解,区分二者实有必要,非损害赔偿责任方式针对妨害源而非损害结果应成为理论共识。非损害赔偿责任方式虽不适用侵权归责原则,但亦非绝对无条件,而应遵循以违法性为责任成立要件、适度性为责任范围要件的规则,同时予以适当限缩,以体现利益衡量的法学思想。     

Intentional torts claims in medical cases

Civil liability legislation enacted in each Australian jurisdiction following the Ipp Report recommendations created a clear divide between "negligence" and "intentional" torts. The common law action for trespass to the person is to varying extents maintained in the approaches taken by the State and Territory legislatures. This article explores the potential application of intentional torts claims in a medical context in light of recent case law. It identifies advantages for plaintiffs who plead intentional tort claims, including onus of proof, causation, remoteness, the quantum of compensatory damages and the availability of aggravated and exemplary damages.     

Scope of liability: the vanishing distinction between negligence and strict liability

The duty-of-care requirement cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability because it can be found in many forms of the latter. Duty of care is smuggled into strict liability hidden under the scope of liability requirement (traditionally called “proximate causation”). As far as the scope of liability requirement is common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability, there is a fairly large common ground to both liability rules, and consequently the marginal Hand formula is applied to both rules. Indeed, under a negligence rule, the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether or not the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether or not the defendant’s behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. However, under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken the normative question raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a potential major problem due to the importance of scope of liability or proximate causation in legal practice. Defining the scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic legal policy decision for each and every liability rule. In the normative model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and given the scope of liability, the government then decides the liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the article, most known scope of liability rationales developed by both common law and civil law systems are discussed in order to show the substantial common ground between negligence and strict liability.     

我国产品责任制度:守成与创新

相对于《产品质量法》有关产品责任的规定,《侵权责任法》第五章既有守成的一面也有诸多创新规定,在解释上不可完全适用特别法优先的原则或新法优先的原则,而是要将两个法律的相关规定有机结合起来进行系统的解释,方能正确适用。《侵权责任法》没有对产品责任中的"损害"进行重新界定,产品自身的财产损失不属于产品责任的"损害";精神损害赔偿适用于产品责任案件,惩罚性赔偿规定的适用有待最高人民法院作出更具有可操作性的司法解释。     

日本环境侵权民事责任研究

公害是由于社会发展不平衡,导致对人们生活环境的破坏而产生的,目前,已成为侵权行为类型中最重要的一种。日本的判例与学说认为,在因环境公害纠纷而引起的民事诉讼中,被害人可以以公害为理由请求侵权人承担损害赔偿和请求停止行为民事责任。这一见解,对完善与发展我国环境侵权行为民事责任的立法和我国环境公害的司法救济制度,具有重要借鉴价值。     

涉外产品责任的法律探析

随着越来越多的外国产品投放到中国市场，由外国产品引起的涉外产品责任案件也日渐增多。由于国内相关产品责任法律制度的不完善，我国的受害方常常难以得到充分、合理的保护。为此，必须对涉外产品责任案件的管辖权、法律适用以及修订产品质量法等方面进行法律完善。     

Retroactive liability and the insurability of long-tail risks

This article focuses on a specific aspect of liability insurance that arises out of the latent nature of certain insured events. In particular, it is concerned with the fact that in the interval between the original tort and the claim for damages the standard of care applied by the courts may change. This is the problem of retroactive liability. The article begins by briefly reviewing the legal background to the retrospective application of liability rules. Then it formally addresses the question of how retroactive liability can be reconciled with the goals of tort law and whether retroactive liability is insurable.     

环境公益损害救济诉求下排除危害责任的解释论分析

在回应环境公益损害救济诉求的过程中,排除危害责任的体系构造与既有的环境行政规制体系功能互补。纯粹私法视角提供的解释框架,存在法律适用、实践后果、理论逻辑等方面的诸多缺陷,无法实现排除危害责任目的、功能与技术逻辑的自洽。以对环境公益产生的危险程度和可能性作为排除危害责任的要件,缺乏明确的判断标准,容易导致风险预防原则的滥用。为此,需要运用比例原则作为分析框架,根据案件性质差异对审查强度进行类型化,确定个案审查强度的裁量要素,厘定面向治理的环境司法与环境行政规制的权力边界。