【作者】 孙强；

【导师】 裴丽萍；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 共同侵权行为,作为民法上一种重要的侵权行为,随着社会分工的细化,人际关系的密切、加强与连带性,日益显示出重要的社会意义。但是,由于各方面的原因,各国在理论和立法上对共同侵权行为共同性的认定上,以及由此产生的对于共同侵权范围与类型上,仍然存在诸多值得研究的理论和实践问题。本文从我国目前法律对共同侵权行为的规定以及相应司法解释入手,提出共同侵权行为的成立在于其共同性的确定,由于我国理论对共同性的认识不一,主要有主观说、客观说、折中说,关于共同侵权的相关法律规定和司法解释使得共同侵权共同性的认定更加复杂化,笔者通过对不同时期、不同国家和地区关于共同侵权行为共同性的立法规定和理论探讨,总结出共同侵权行为的共同性在法律传统和政策倾向下的演变脉络,通过对我国理论中关于“共同性”的探讨逐一评析,并阐释各种学说背后的价值取向,即随着侵权法功能的演变、价值目标的变迁、适用领域的扩大等当代侵权法的发展趋势,共同侵权制度的共同性的内涵与外延亦产生了深刻的影响。在此基础上揭示侵权法的变革对共同性纷争的潜在影响,廓清其与间接侵权行为的外缘,澄清共同侵权行为在当下社会的性质演变,从外延上界定共同侵权行为的共同性范围;最后对现有的解决共同侵权行为共同性的因应之道进行简要评析,并在此基础上提出鉴于侵权法的特性使形式逻辑论证不能自洽,应以相当因果关系对共同侵权的共同性进行重新构建并结合现有共同侵权体系下主要的共同侵权行为类型进行了解析。本文主要分为五个部分对共同侵权行为的共同性构成要件进行探讨,各个部分的内容简述如下:第一部分:主要从我国《民法通则》和《人身损害赔偿司法解释》对共同侵权行为的规定引发对共同侵权行为的共同性的探讨,并分析了我国现有法律制度上对共同性界定的含糊与不合理性,并对其标准的不合理性进行简要分析,而共同性的难题既困扰着我国理论界,亦对司法实务产生不良影响,理论中,关于共同性的解释对立且不统一,司法裁判上对共同侵权的认定没有具体标准,随意性极强,提出共同性的明确对解决理论与实务问题的意义。第二部分:从比较法的角度梳理共同侵权行为的共同性,比较大陆法和英美法中共同侵权制度的“共同性构成”,自德国肇始确定共同侵权制度以来,大陆法系其他国家除法国外纷纷仿效德国建立共同侵权制度,同时确定“过错”为共同侵权行为的共同性,随着环境污染、公害事故的大量涌现,出于对受害人的保护,传统大陆法系国家对共同侵权行为的共同性构成要件“松绑”,而与此不同的是,英美法系由判例的传统产生的侵权法本着务实的精神,不对共同侵权行为的共同性进行认定,而是将共同侵权与连带责任联系起来,以连带责任的范围来限定何种情况下构成共同侵权。第三部分:共同侵权行为共同性构成要件的纷争。关于共同侵权行为共同性构成,我国法学理论界主要分为主观说、客观说和折中说三种学说,主观说固守、严格限制共同侵权范围的扩大,在现今共同侵权行为多样化的态势下,有对受害人保护不周之虞,而客观说亦矫枉过正,宽泛地认定共同侵权只会将其异化为“多数人侵权”,折中说采取双重标准只是简单地将主观说与客观说进行叠加,没有从根本上解决共同性问题,而上述不同学说之间的抵牾隐藏着面临受害人权益的充分救济与行为人行为自由的适当范围之间的冲突与平衡问题。第四部分:共同侵权行为共同性构成要件在当代的挑战。在当下“危机四伏、充满损害的风险社会”,迫使共同侵权行为理论不断面临现实生活的挑战,侵权法的价值理念在一定程度上改变了共同侵权制度,而无过错责任的确定也在一定程度上影响了共同侵权行为的认定标准,在此基础上,揭示侵权法演变的轮廓,廓清共同侵权行为与间接侵权行为的界限、明晰共同侵权行为的性质是解决共同侵权行为共同性的基础。第五部分:共同侵权行为共同性构成的重构。共同侵权制度的共同性构成要件难以确立,从而导致共同侵权行为的范围模糊不清,现代社会生活场景趋于复杂,利益角逐关系呈现出多样化的态势,在丰富的现实生活面前,传统的共同侵权理论显得捉襟见肘,而无论从关联共同来解释共同性还是从责任承担的方式对共同性的解决之道都不能从根本上因应社会现实,而侵权法作为对现实生活回应性最强的部门法,形式逻辑的推理论证往往不能圆融自洽,需要借助论辩逻辑解释共同性构成要件,以相当性因果关系来解释共同侵权行为的共同性不仅能因应现实生活中共同侵权行为的发展,保证侵权法的稳定性,还能够为未来新型共同侵权行为的出现留下合理的空间,科学合理地保证共同侵权制度的内在逻辑和外在圆融。更多还原

【Abstract】 Joint tort, as an important civil law violations, with the refinement of the social division of labor, with the close relationships, with the associated, is growing to show importance of social significance. However, because various reasons, different countries have different definitions about joint tort in theory and legislation, and there are still a lot theoretical and practical issues to be studied about the scopes and types of joint tort. From the perspective of China’s current legal rule of the joint tort and relevant judicial interpretations, this paper states that the establishment of joint tort subject to the determination of their commonality. Recently, our theoretical understanding of joint tort is different, such as subjective theory, objective theory, compromise theory. That the joint tort on the relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations make the definitions of joint tort more complex. Through the different periods, different countries and regions on the commonality of joint tort about the legislative provisions and theoretical study ,this paper sum up the evolution of joint tort in the common law tradition and policy orientation, on this basis, through the assessment of China’s theory On the " joint tort ", and explain the various values behind the theories ,and with the evolution of tort law functions, the changes in the value of targets, such as expanding the area of application of contemporary trends in the development of tort law, the common system of tort Connotation and extension of the commonality also have had a profound impact. Revealed by the potential impact of law of tort reform on the commonality disputes, dissection and indirect infringement of its outer edge, clarify common violations in the current social evolution and the nature of the concomitant impact, finally a brief assessment of the existing common solutions to joint tort .And on this basis in view of tort law by the logic of that form of proof can not be self-consistent, there should be a causal link between the joint tort of commonality and re-building of existing common tort system that common types of violations are analysed.This paper is divided into five main parts, which explore the common constitute elements of joint tort. Each parts of the content can be summarized as follows:Part I: Based on the "General Principles of Civil Law" and " judicial interpretation of personal injury compensation " ,this paper explore the commonality of joint tort triggered by the rules of joint tort behavior .This paper also analyse China’s existing legal system on the definition of joint tort ,such as the ambiguity and illegitmacy, and give brief analysis of the unreasonable standards, and problems of the commonality not only are plaguing our theoretical circles, but also have a negative impact on judicial practice. In theory, the explanations of commonality are not unify even against, the administration of justice on the joint tort have no specific standards, highly arbitrary, and it has great significance to make it clear to solve the theoretical and practical problems of joint torts .Part II: From the perspective of Comparative Law ,this paper combing the commonality of joint tort, and comparing the differences between common law and civil law in the system of England and America. since Germany began to identify joint tort system, the civil division in other countries except the france have to follow the establishment of a joint tort system and determine "fault" as the common violations of commonality. With environmental pollution, and a large number of pollution incidents have emerged, for the protection of the victims, the traditional civil law countries of the joint tort of the common elements of a "relaxing", and this difference is that the common law jurisprudence from the traditional tort law in the spirit of pragmatism, not common for violations of that commonality, but will connect the joint tort with liable responsibility to define what is the joint tort within the scope of liable responsibility.Part III: Joint tort constitute a common element of the dispute. On the common elements of joint tort, China’s legal theory can be divided into three theories, that is subjective theory, objective theory and compromise theory. The subjective theory, strictly limit the expansion of the scope of joint tort , under the current trend of diversification of the joint torts, And the protection of victims of ill-risk, but in the opinions of objective theory, that broad common violations will only for the alienation of "infringing the majority of people." Compromise theory adopted double standards, simply linking the subjective theory and objective theory .and can not find a fundamental resolution of joint torts problems, and the doctrine between the different theories hidden conflict and balance problems such as the full rights of victims and perpetrators of acts of relief to the appropriate extent .Part IV: Joint torts face challenges in contemporary. In the current "crisis, with the risk of damage to society", forcing the joint torts facing challenges in real life. To a certain extent, tort values changed the joint tort system, and the determining of without the responsibility fault to a certain extent have the impact on the joint torts of that standard, on the basis of this, reveals the evolution of the tort ,outlines the boundaries of direct and indirect violations, make it clear that the nature of violations are the basis of commonality.Part V: Joint torts behaviors constitute reconstruction of commonality. Because common elements of the joint torts system is difficult to establish, resulting in the scope of violations are blurring together, study on "commonality", and scenes of modern social life are more complicated, relations between the interests of parties showing a trend of diversification, so the traditional common theory is stretched infringement, whether from the association to explain common or from the way of shared commitment, the common solution is not possible to fundamentally solve the social reality problems. The law of tort as the strongest sectors laws response to the real life , the reasoning of logical form often can not self-consistent, the logical explanation need the help of a common elements. The explanation of commonality violations using cause and effect relationship is not only go with the development of tort law ,but also guarantees the stability of tort law, and leave reasonable room for the future emergence of new joint torts behaviors, making sure that that the common tort system have the inherent logic and external consistent.更多还原