• 首页
  • 期刊简介
  • 编委会
  • 投稿须知
  • 审稿指南
  • 订阅指南
  • 联系我们
引用本文:汪倪杰:论第三人侵权场景下安全保障义务人的责任形态,载《交大法学》2025年第4期,第111~124页。
Wang Nijie, On the Forms of Liability of the Security Duty Holder in Indirect Infringement, (4) SJTU LAW REVIEW 111-124 (2025).
【打印本页】   【下载PDF全文】   【查看/发表评论】  【下载PDF阅读器】  【关闭】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 28次   下载 9次 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
字体:加大+|默认|缩小-
论第三人侵权场景下安全保障义务人的责任形态
汪倪杰1
复旦大学法学院
摘要:
我国《民法典》规定安保义务人在第三人侵权情形下承担补充责任。该规则无法囊括不作为与作为结合侵权情形下的各类责任形态,亟待重构。首先,应承认广义安保义务,将其作为《民法典》第1198条安保义务的上位概念,并将义务来源限缩为物件型与债因型,构建义务违反与责任份额之间的直接关联;其次,应通过比较法考察,明确不作为与作为结合侵权责任分配的基本原理: 当不作为方的注意义务覆盖避免作为行为时,不作为方与作为方构成连带责任。反之,二者就重叠部分形成外部连带、内部按份的责任构成,其余部分由作为方负责。基于上述两点,我国应在《民法典》体系内明确违反安保义务侵权的一般过错责任性质,并将不作为与作为结合侵权情形下安保义务人的责任形态融入《民法典》第1171条与第1172条。而《民法典》第1198条中的补充责任应做限缩解释,充当《民法典》第1172条的子类型,以维持侵权责任编的体系融贯。
关键词:  安全保障义务 补充责任 不作为侵权 连带责任 按份责任
DOI:
分类号:
基金项目:教育部人文社会科学研究项目“《民法典》安全保障义务规则适用中的疑难问题研究”(项目编号: 24YJC820040)
On the Forms of Liability of the Security Duty Holder in Indirect Infringement
Wang Nijie
Abstract:
Chinese Civil Code provides for the supplementary liability of the security duty holder in the case of infringement by a third party. This rule fails to encompass the various forms of liability in the case of combined torts of omission and commission, and needs to be reconstructed. Firstly, the broad security duty should be recognized as a superseding concept of the security duty in Article 1198 of the Civil Code, and the source of the duty should be limited to the object- and debt-caused types, to establish a direct link between the breach of duty and the share of liability. Secondly, the principle of the liability's allocation in the combined tort of omission and commission should be clarified: when the security duty covers the direct infringement, the security duty holder and the direct infringer constitute joint liability; conversely, the two form externally a joint and internally a several liability for the overlapping part, while the remaining part should be compensated by the direct infringer independently. For these two reasons above, we should clarify the nature of general fault liability for breach of security duty in the combined tort of omission and commission, and incorporate it into Article 1171 and 1172. Accordingly, the supplementary liability in Article 1198 should be interpreted in a restricted manner as a sub-type of Article 1172 to ensure a coherent system of tort liabilities in the Civil Code.
Key words:  Duty of Security, Supplementary Liability, Indirect Infringement, Joint Liability, Several Liability
您是本站第  4308324  位访问者!沪交ICP备20180131号
版权所有:《交大法学》编辑部
地址:上海市徐汇区华山路1954号上海交通大学凯原法学楼    邮政编码:200030
电话:021-62933317   电子邮箱:lawreview@sjtu.edu.cn
技术支持:北京勤云科技发展有限公司