道路交通事故损害赔偿研究

【作者】 吴环；

【导师】 李明发；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 随着人类进入汽车时代，伴随而来的机动车交通事故如同疟疾和艾滋病一样，亦成了人们普遍关注的社会问题。交通事故也是我国最大的“隐形杀手”，给人们的身体、健康和生命、财产安全造成了极大的危害，因交通事故引发的损害赔偿纠纷亦日益增多。我国汽车工业起步较晚，道路交通事故损害赔偿方面的立法尚不完善，司法实践中遇到的问题还很多，各地的做法又不统一，甚至交通事故中仍有部分损害得不到司法救济。因此，对机动车道路交通事故损害赔偿进行研究，显得十分必要。 本文首先通过对国内外机动车交通事故损害赔偿方面的立法进行比较，结合我国的实际情况，提出了我国制定道路交通事故损害赔偿法的必要性。同时，通过对我国《民法通则》第123条和行人违章“撞了白撞”进行评析，指出我国道路交通事故损害赔偿法应当摒弃行政法规和地方性规章所奉行的“以规章为本”的错误理念，而应当坚持“以人为本”的立法指导思想和基本价值取向。 由于我国处理道路交通事故损害赔偿纠纷长期依据的是《道路交通事故处理办法》，其行政色彩太浓，以致规定和学说共同形成的交通事故损害赔偿责任的构成要件存在严重不足。文章通过对国外机动车交通事故损害赔偿责任要件的考察，结合我国司法实践经验，对我国道路交通事故损害赔偿责任的重构提出了自己的观点。 因道路交通事故损害赔偿责任主体与道路交通事故责任者不是同一概念，而我国对道路交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定标准至今没有法律明文规定，导致审判实践中，各地认识不同，操作不一，反映强烈。为此，文章对国内外有关机动车交通事故损害赔偿责任主体认定标准的理论及实践进行了认真分析。笔者认为，我国的“名义车主责任说”缺乏理论根据，且弊多利少，不能作为道路交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定标准。纵观世界各国，占主导地位的“运行支配”与“运行利益”之“二元说”和“运行支配”之“一元说”虽各有其优，但也各有不足，无论采“二元说”，还是采“一元说”作为判定机动车交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的标准，都有失偏颇。笔者提出了“二元说”与“一元说”之“折中说”，即对机动车交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定，应确立以“二元说为原则，以一元说为补充”的基本原则，并认为，这一基本原则不仅不违背“报偿责任”理论和“危险责任”理论，而且符合客观实际，有利于解决一切场合下的机动车交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定问题。本文还根据“折中说”，对我国审判实践中若干特殊情形下道路交通事故损害赔偿责任主体的认定进行了分析和探讨。 赔偿问题是交通事故损害的最终法律后果，也是交通事故损害赔偿责任主体对事故受害人应当承担的民事责任。本文最后就交通事故损害赔偿的归责原则、赔偿原则、赔偿范围进行了深入研究。 总之，道路交通事故是汽车时代最大的负面产物，也是我国当前最为严重的社会问题。对机动车道路交通事故引发的损害赔偿纠纷，我们既要依法处理，从“以人为本”的指导思想出发，切实保护受害人的合法权益，同时又要动用全社会的力量，建立和完善道路交通事故损害赔偿的保障制度，使道路交通事故损害赔偿问题真正得到充分的救济和有效的解决。关键词:道路交通事故损害赔偿责任要件责任主体保障制度更多还原

【Abstract】 Automobile traffic accident, the by-product of automobile era, became a serious social problem which attracts wide attention as well as malaria and AIDS. As "the biggest killer" in China, it caused tremendous damage to people’ s life and possession security. Meanwhile, the number of dissensions of compensation for artomobile traffic accident damage is increasing. The automobile industry in China commenced comparatively late, the legislation in compensation for raod traffic accident damage is still far from advanced, many problems in judicial practice still exist, the different places have different disposals, and some damages in traffic accidents even could not get any judicial remedy. Hereby it is quite necessary to do further research on compensation for automobile traffic accident damage.This thesis explains the necessity of legislation of compensation for automobile traffic accident damage thereunder reality in China through the comparison between the different legislations in this field inside and outside China. With the analysis of the one hundred and twenty-third article of Civil Law and the concept of "the automobile which caused the trouble bears no liability if the passerby violate traffic regulations first" , the author points out that our legislation of compensation for automobile traffic accident damage should spurm the false idea of "to regard regulations and rules as essentials" which is pursued by administrative statutes and local regulations, but adhere to the legislation guiding ideology and essential value judgment of "to regard individuals as essentials" .The dense administrative color of Management Measure on Road Traffic Accidents which is chronically used as criterion to handle dissensionsof compensation for automobile traffic accident damage results in the lack of important constructive conditions of compensation liability for automobile traffic accident damage which are formed by the measure and the theory. Through investigation into the important constructive conditions of compensation liability for automobile traffic accident damage outside of China: relating judicial practice experience in China, the thesis proposes a new viewpoint to the reconstruction of compensation liability for automobile traffic accident damage.Since the compensation liability subject for automobil traffic accident damage and the infringer are different concepts, and till now in China there is no legal provision to define compensation liability subject for automobile traffic accident damage, adjudication organs in different places have different understandings and operations, which lack of conformity with judicial unified criterion. Therefore the thesis analyses the theories and practices on defining compensation liability subject for automobile traffic accident damage inside and outside China seriously. In author’ s opinion, the theory of "nominal owner should bear the liability" lacks academic basis, furthermore it produces more disadvantages than advantages, thus it could not be the criterion to define compensation liability subject for automobile traffic accident damage. With a comprehensive survey of theories in different countries, the author found that "the Dualism" combining both "operation domination" and "function benefit" which is in the highest flight and "the Monism" emphasizing only "operation domination" are both partial though each of them has its own advantages. Hereby the author raises a point of "the Eclecticism" of the above two theories, i. e. to define compensation liability subject for automobile traffic accident damage one should abide the essential principle of "the Dualism as principal guideline, the Monismas supplement" . The author believes that this essential principle doesn’ t violate "recompense liability" theory nor "risk liability" theory. And withal, it accords with external reality and is of great advantage to solve the problem of defining compensation liability subject for automobile traffic accident damage on all occasions. In addition, the thesis discusses defining of compens更多还原