【作者】 苏珊珊；

【导师】 赵新华；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 《侵权责任法》自2010年7月1日实施以来,有关饲养动物致害责任的问题在理论和实践上都还存在较多争议。笔者从动物致害责任的一般规定、动物致害责任的特殊规定、《侵权责任法》动物致害规定适用中的实践思考这几个方面对动物致害责任进行了论述,总结了这个领域的普遍观点,也发表了自己的一些见解。本文第一部分介绍了动物致害责任的一般规定。首先,笔者对我国《侵权责任法》颁布前后的立法和司法实践进行了简要介绍,通过比较法分析,肯定了动物致害责任的一般归责原则为无过错责任原则,从而归纳出动物致害责任的一般构成要件包括饲养的动物、动物危险的实现、受害人的损害、动物危险的实现与损害之间有因果关系。其中“饲养的动物”应注意三个方面的理解。其一,此处的“动物”,应按照社会的一般观念来理解其含义。其二,不包括野生动物。其三,应包括军用、警用动物以及科研机构、专业表演团队等单位因工作需要而饲养的动物。此外,动物危险的实现是动物致害责任的前提。其次,明确了动物致害责任的一般赔偿主体的身份认定。动物致害责任的一般赔偿主体是动物的饲养人或管理人,其身份的认定要看为谁的利益使用动物和谁对动物有决定权。动物的饲养人或管理人负有对动物的妥善管理义务。最后,总结了免责事由和举证责任原则。动物致害责任的免责、减责事由为损害的发生或扩大是由被侵权人的故意或者重大过失造成的,具体适用要看对损害的发生具有的原因力,且适用举证责任倒置。其中,对于禁止饲养的危险动物,即便存在不可抗力也不能免责；而对于其它的饲养的动物,则可以因不可抗力而免责。对于家庭饲养的动物致害的,应认定同住成年家庭成员为共同的饲养人和管理人,受害人可以选择其中一人或多人主张权利。第二部分介绍了动物致害责任的特殊规定。笔者将《侵权责任法》的相关规定归类为五个动物致害责任的特殊规定,分别为违反管理规定饲养动物致害责任、禁止饲养的烈性犬等危险动物致害责任、动物园的动物致害责任、遗弃、逃逸的动物致害责任、因第三人的过错导致动物致害责任。笔者结合了大量实践中的案例,通过比较法分析,分别从构成要件、抗辩事由、责任性质等方面对这些特殊规定加以详细解读。第一,违反管理规定饲养动物致害责任该责任为无过错责任,其前提是“未对动物采取安全措施”。笔者分析了其构成要件中“管理规定”的范围和“未对动物采取安全措施”的界定,受害人具有故意或重大过失,不能免除或减轻动物饲养人或管理人的责任。第二,禁止饲养的烈性犬等危险动物致害责任是更为严格的无过错责任,侵权人没有任何减责或者免责的事由。笔者分析了其构成要件中对“禁止饲养的危险动物”的理解和“特别危险的实现”。此外,特别说明了导盲犬不属于烈性犬的范畴；第三,动物园的动物致害责任为过错推定责任,但其合理性有待商榷。笔者分析了其构成要件中“动物园”的范围和对“动物园尽到其管理职责”的认定。第四,遗弃、逃逸的动物致害责任为无过错责任,但有免责事由,包括遗弃、逃逸的动物被人收留和逃逸的动物回归自然。第五,因第三人过错导致的动物致害责任,第三人与动物饲养人或管理人负不真正连带责任。笔者分析了其构成要件中“第三人”的范围与“第三人的过错”,并归纳了其较之民法通则相关规定的立法变化。第三部分是对《侵权责任法》动物致害责任适用中的实践思考,经过推敲和思索,笔者提出了三个值得思考的问题。首先是我国《侵权责任法》第七十八到八十条规定的三个无过错责任条款之间的关系如何梳理。笔者认为,如果原告依据第七十八条起诉,则被告可主张原告的故意或重大过失为其抗辩事由。如果原告依据第七十九条起诉,若证明了被告“违反管理规定”和“未对动物采取安全措施”,则被告不得再主张原告的故意或重大过失为其抗辩事由。如果原告依据第八十条起诉,若证明了被告饲养的是禁止饲养的烈性犬等危险动物,则被告也不得再主张原告的故意或重大过失为其抗辩事由。其次是第八十一条规定的动物园的动物致害责任的过错推定责任原则是否合理。笔者认为,结合动物的危险性、营利机构的本质和危险分担的不对等性这三方面的要求,应将《侵权责任法》第八十一条规定的过错推定责任原则改为适用无过错责任原则。最后是第八十二条规定的遗弃、逃逸动物致害责任在实践中是否具有可操作性。笔者认为,此条规定的可操作性较低,可以通过采取加强政府部门责任、明确危险责任界定、健全宠物登记制度等措施,使《侵权责任法》的有关规定更具有现实意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the Tort Liability Law of People’s Republic of China (hereinafter to be referred as "Tort Liability Law") was promulgated with effect on 1 July 2010, it has been strongly argued theoretically and practically in terms of the liability for tort of domesticated animals. I discussed the liability for tort of the domesticated animals from three aspects, the general provisions, the special provisions and the practical thinking on the appliance of the animals’liability provisions in the Tort Liability Law, as well as expressed some new opinions of my own.The first part is the analyses to the general provisions on animals’ liability. Above all, I gave a brief introduction of legislation and judicial practice before and after enactment of Tort Liability Law by comparing the analysis, affirmed the Animal’s Damage Liability principles generally attributable to the principle of liability without fault, which summarized the animal virulence elements of general liability, including feeding the animals, dangerous animals, the realization of the victim’s harm, dangerous animals, the realization of a causal link between the injury. The "domestic animal" should pay attention to three aspects of understanding. First, the "animals" here should be in accordance with the general idea of the community to understand its meaning. Second, the "animals" do not include the wild animals. Third, they should include the military, police animal and research institutions, professional performing arts groups, and other units because of their work and animals. In addition, the realization of the dangerous animals is the premise to the Animal’s Damage Liability. Second, I clarified the responsibility of the general compensation for animal virulence identity of the subject identified. Animal Damage Liability in general compensation for the subject is an animal keeper or manager, their identity depends on the identification and use of animals for whom the interests of the power to decide who is on the animal. The animal keeper or administrator is liable for obligations of the proper management of animals. Finally, I concluded the summary of the exemptions and the burden of proof principle. Animal Damage Liability Disclaimer, diminished responsibility for the damage occurred or the subject of expansion is being infringed by a person’s intentional or gross negligence, the.specific application of the damage depends on the reasons for the occurrence of a force, and the applicable burden of proof. Hereinto the dangerous animals which are prohibited from keeping can be exempted because of the "Act of God" but not applied to the other domestic animals. The family members for domestic animals should be identified adult living together for the common farmers and managers, the victim can choose one or more persons to claim rights.The second part is the analyses on the special provisions of the Animal Damage Liability. I classified the relevant provisions of the Animal Damage Liability in Tort Liability Law, as five special provisions, regulations were violated Damage Liability animals, prohibits the keeping of dogs and other dangerous animals potent Damage Liability, zoo animals cause damage liability, abandonment, escape the responsibility of animal virulence, due to the fault of third party liability caused animal virulence. I practiced with a large number of cases, by comparing the analysis, respectively, from the constituent elements, defenses, and other aspects of nature of the responsibility to be detailed interpretation of these special provisions. First, the violation of regulations Damage Liability in animals is the responsibility of liability without fault, on the premise that "not to take security measures to animals." I analyzed the constituent elements of "regulations" scope and "not to take security measures to animals," the definition of the victim with intent or gross negligence, can not waive or reduce the animal keeper or administrator’s responsibility. Second, prohibits the keeping of dogs and other dangerous animals potent Damage Liability is a more stringent no-fault liability, the infringer is not responsible for any reduction or exemption of the subject. The author analyzes the elements of its composition, "prohibits the keeping of dangerous animals" understanding and "particularly dangerous to achieve." In addition, the special instructions of the guide dogs do not belong to the scope of spirits; Third, the responsibility of the zoo’s animal virulence presumption of fault liability, but its reasonable to be seen. I analyzed the constituent elements in the scope of "zoo" and on the "zoo’s conscientiousness" found. Fourth, the abandonment, escape the responsibility of animal virulence liability without fault, but there are exemptions, including abandonment, escape of animals was an animal shelter and escape back to nature. Fifth, the fault caused by a third party the responsibility of animal virulence, and the third man and the keeper or manager does not really bear joint and several liabilities. The author analyzes the constituent elements in the "third person" in the scope of "third person’s fault," and summarizes the relevant provisions of its civil law than the legislative changes.The Last part is the practical thinking on the appliance of the animal damage liability in the Tort Liability Law. I put up three thought-provoking questions after deliberation and meditation. First is on how to dress the relationship among the three no-fault liability terms 78 to 80 In my opinion, based on the clause 78, if the plaintiff sued the defendant may be argued that the plaintiffs willful or gross negligence of its defenses. If the plaintiff based on the clause 79 prosecution, if proved that the defendant "violation of regulations", and "not to take security measures to animals", the plaintiff, the defendant shall not claim for intentional or gross negligence defenses. Ten according to the eighth if the plaintiff sued the defendant, if proved that prohibits the keeping of breeding dogs and other dangerous animals potent, the defendant claims the plaintiff shall not be intentional or gross negligence of its defenses. Followed the provisions of the zoo animals the clause 81, Damage Liability presumption of fault liability principle is reasonable. I believe that, combined with the risk of animals, nature and risk of profit institutions of unequal sharing of these three requirements, the words "Tort Liability Act" the clause 81 responsibility under the principle of presumption of fault to apply the principle of liability without fault. Finally, eighty-second article of the abandoned animals Damage Liability escape whether in practice operable. In my opinion, it’s not very easy to operate this clause. However, I consider it can be implemented to be more practical of the related provisions in the Tort Liability Law through strengthening the liability of the government, perfecting the danger liability principle and improving the pets register system.更多还原