【作者】 王丽丽；

【导师】 毛瑞兆；

【作者基本信息】 山西大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 我国现行法律法规对机动车与非机动车、行人之间发生道路交通事故产生的损害赔偿责任,使用“机动车一方”的责任主体界定标准存在缺陷,尚未建立一套适应当前市场经济体制下的交通事故损害赔偿的法律制度。实践中往往存在机动车车主与驾驶人相分离的情形,那么,机动车车主应否承担损害赔偿责任?车主承担赔偿责任的性质是什么?本文首次引入“机动车车主替代责任”理论,通过法解释学、历史研究、比较研究、实证研究、价值分析等方法,阐述了车主与驾驶人相分离状态下,“机动车一方”车主的赔偿责任的确立及承担问题。为此,本文以“机动车车主替代责任”为主旨,分为四章进行论述:第一章:道路交通事故损害赔偿责任概述。从道路交通事故责任入手,结合侵权行为的归责原则、侵权责任形态等基础理论,明确了道路交通事故赔偿责任主体的特殊性,车主与驾驶人不一致时,存在车主与驾驶人两个责任主体,并进一步引出了机动车车主的替代责任问题。第二章:机动车车主替代责任理论与立法比较。本章分为两部分,第一部分综述了机动车车主替代责任理论。本章从替代责任的起源及形态开始阐述,为机动车车主的存在奠定了一定的基础。并逐步引入机动车车主替代责任理论,重点阐述了其产生与存在的充分的理论依据。第二部分介绍了机动车车主替代责任之立法比较。主要从英美法系、大陆法系等国家进行比较研究,从而借鉴国外的相关先进原则及方法,进一步完善我国的机动车车主替代责任理论。第三章:我国机动车车主替代责任的现状。首先介绍了目前我国机动车车主替代责任的立法现状,随后,本文就机动车车主替代责任的类型化情形进行分析,主要概括为:第一种是机动车车主同意驾驶人合法使用的情形,第二种是未经车主许可擅自使用机动车的情形,第三种是机动车出售并交付的情形。第四章:构建我国机动车车主的替代责任制度。虽然我国法律法规没有明确提及机动车车主替代责任理论,但在实践中,关于机动车车主与驾驶人分离,机动车替代驾驶人承担损害赔偿责任的情况不在少数。故笔者认为,基于机动车与非机动车方、行人之间的交通事故损害赔偿中,机动车车主责任承担的判定基准应采“危险牵连”、“运行收益”和“过错原则”。机动车车主与驾驶人相分离,由于机动车是高危运输工具,虽然车主没有直接控制管理机动车,但经车主同意由驾驶人驾驶的,仍与其存在危险牵连关系,车主应当承担一定的损害赔偿责任。同时,若车主享受了运行利益,或未尽到合理的注意义务,亦应承担相应的赔偿责任。这种责任不是由车主直接产生的,而是在由驾驶人直接承担损害赔偿责任的情况下,车主也有一定的责任需要共同承担时,车主承担的责任就属于替代责任。由于机动车车主的替代责任制度并不是一种很好的救济方式,是基于立法不完善及实践的复杂性而产生,因此,为了更好地保障受害人的权益,并且做到效率公平,更应完善机动车损害赔偿的相关立法。更多还原

【Abstract】 China’s existing laws and regulations on vehicle and non-vehicle side, pedestrian road traffic accidents occurred between the liability for damage, the use of "motor vehicle side," the responsibility of the main shortcomings defined standards have yet to establish a system under the current market economy The accident damages the legal system. In practice, motor vehicle owner and driver often phase separation, in such cases, whether motor vehicle owner should be held liable for compensatory damages? What is the nature of the owner liable?This is the first introduction of the theory of "motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability", through the interpretation of law, history, comparative studies, empirical research, value analysis, on the owner and driver of the state of separation, the liability of establishment and commitment in owner of "motor vehicle side". In this paper, use the keynote of "motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability", divided into four chapters were discussed:ChapterⅠ: General concept of liability for traffic accidents’ damage compensate. Responsibility from the start of road traffic accidents, the principle of tort liability, tort liability, and other basic shape theory, clear the main road traffic accidents liability of the special nature of owner and driver of disagreement, there were two drivers and owners of the main responsibilities, and further led to the owner of motor vehicle vicarious liability issue.ChapterⅡ: Theory and legislature comparison on motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability. This chapter is divided into two parts; the first part discusses the theory of motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability. This chapter from the vicarious liability of origin and morphology started on, the existences of the owner of motor vehicle have laid the foundation. Motor vehicle owner and gradually introduce a vicarious liability theory, have focused on its presence and the full theory. The second part discusses the legislation comparison study of the motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability. Mainly from the common law, civil law countries such as a comparative study thus learn from foreign advanced principles and the relevant ways to further improve our motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability theory.ChapterⅢ: Present situation on motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability in our country. First introduced China’s current owners of motor vehicle vicarious liability of the state of legislation, and then, the paper vicarious liability on the owner of motor vehicle of the type of situation analysis, the main summarized as follows: The first one is the driving motor vehicle owner agree that the legitimate use of the situation. The second is without the owner permission to use the motor vehicle case. The third is motor vehicle is sold and delivered situation.ChapterⅣ: Construction system on our country’s motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability. Although China’s laws and regulations dose not expressly refer to theory on motor vehicle owner’s vicarious liability, but in practice, in regard to motor vehicle owner and driver separation, alternative motor vehicle driver held liable for compensatory damages of the minority. Therefore, I believe that, based on the non-motorized vehicle and pedestrian traffic between the damages, the liability of owners of motor vehicles determined benchmarks should be adopted "dangerous implications", "operation receipts" and "fault principle."When motor vehicle owner and driver are separation, although the owner haven’t direct control and manage motor vehicle, but the owner agreed that the motorist to drive, there are still dangers involved with the relationship between owner should bear certain damages responsibility. At the same time, if the owner enjoy the benefits of the operation, or haven’t bear a reasonable duty of care, should undertake corresponding liability. This responsibility is not derived directly from the owner, but by the driver who directly bears the liability for damage circumstances, the owner will have the fault of the need of shared responsibility, the responsibility of the owner of vicarious liability.As the owners of motor vehicle vicarious liability system is not a good relief, and is based on flawed legislative practice of the complexity of the produce, therefore, in order to better safeguard the rights of the victims, to efficiency and fairness, it should improve motor vehicle damages related legislation.更多还原