校园学生伤害事故问题研究

【作者】 马串莲；

【导师】 袁敏殊；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 谈及校园学生伤害事故，人们普遍认为是发生在校园内的学生伤害事故。理论上关于校园学生伤害事故的界定也有几种：一些学者将其界定为“在学校期间发生的人身过失伤害事故”；也有人认为“是指在学校管理下的学生所发生的事故”；另有相当一部分人认为“就是学生在校园内发生的人身伤害事故”。上述种种界定，不是在事故主观方面失之狭窄，就是在受伤害主体方面失之宽泛，抑或对校园空间的理解过于狭小，对校园学生伤害事故的内涵和外延缺乏准确的把握。 笔者认为，校园学生伤害事故是中小学校在校学生以及幼儿园在读儿童在学校或者幼儿园就读期间，参加学校或者幼儿园组织的校内外教育教学活动中，或者在学校、幼儿园负有管理责任的校舍场地、其他教育教学设施、生活设施内，受到人身损害或者死亡，以及致他人人身伤害或者死亡的事故。也就是说，它既是一个时间概念，又是一个空间概念。只要事故的发生与学校教育教学活动有关联，即使发生在校外，也属于校园学生伤害事故。 校园学生伤害事故的发生，不仅给受害学生本人及其家长带来不幸，甚至是终生的痛苦，而且给加害者带来沉重的经济负担。司法实践中，学校几乎无一例外地成了被告，这也给教育行政部门、学校及老师造成管理上的困惑与不安。虽说教育部于2002年6月以规章的形式颁布了《学生伤害事故处理办法》，而由于我国现行法律并未就学生伤害事故如何处理作出明确的规定，加之法官对相关的规定理解不一，所以法院在审理该类案件时，对学校(包括幼儿园，下同)是否承担责任，究竟承担何种责任，公立学校与私立学校，尤其是收费昂贵、实行全封闭教学管理的贵族学校所应承担责任的性质是否相同，等等，仍存在不同的认识和做法。笔者认为，要准确认定学校在伤害事故中的责任理清学校与学生之间的关系，明确学校的法律地位，必须澄清学校对学生伤害事故承担责任的基础。目前，关于学校与未成年学生的关系，通常有两种观点:一是监护自动转移说，二是监护委托转移说。上述观点，其实质都是将民事法律关系中的监护制度直接搬迁过来，将学校与学生之间的法律关系划为监护与被监护的关系。笔者从监护制度的性质、内容以及监护委托转移产生的法律后果等方面，对上述两种观点提出了质疑，认为学校与学生之间的法律关系不是纯粹的民事法律关系，而是一种复合型的教育法律关系。教育、管理和保护构成这一法律关系的基本内容，其具体内容则分别具有行政和民事两种不同的属性。尽管学校对学生的教育、管理、保护等职责与监护人的监护职责有类似之处，但二者在职责产生的渊源和理论基础、履行义务的时间、履行职责的空间及内容等方面均存在很大区别，学校是对自己行为承担责任，监护人则是对他人的行为承担责任，二者形相似，实相远。 学校与学生作为复合型教育法律关系的主体，彼此间互负法定的权利与义务，学校对教育职能履行过程中学生受到的伤害是成立行政赔偿还是民事赔偿，各国规定不同。根据民法原理及我国立法规定，校园学生伤害事故中，学校侵权赔偿以民事责任的承担为原则。参酌大陆法系国家和地区的立法及英美法系国家或地区的判例，衡量我国社会现实，多数人认为，学校承担学生伤害事故的赔偿责任宜采用一般过错责任归责原则。笔者认为，那种无论学校对事故的发生及其后果有无过错、过错大小，都应承担责任，学生损失多少，学校就赔偿多少的认识和做法，必然会给我国教育事业的发展带来不利的负面影响;但在某些特殊情况下，学校不承担责任，也势必会损害未成年学生的合法权益。从目前未成年学生在校受到伤害的情况来看，存在侵害主体、致害原因等诸多不同，如依据同一归责原则来确定学校应承担的损害赔偿责任，无论在法理上还是在情理上，均有不妥之处，应做到具体问题区别对待。对于未成年学生之间的侵权行为、受害未成年学生自身原因造成的伤害事故以及校外第三人所致学生伤害事故，学校按一般过错责任原则承担责任，只是在司法实践中，宜采用客观标准确定学校的过错;对学校工作人员，主要是教师的侵权行为而造成的学生伤害事故，学校应承担无过错责任;对于学校的校舍、厕所等设施发生倒塌、脱落而造成学生伤害的，学校根据过错推定原则承担责任;对于意外事件引发的学生伤害事故，学校原则上不承担侵权赔偿责任，但在特殊情况下，可根据公平责任归责原则，分担学生的部分损失。学校根据上述归责原则承担责任的性质，不因学校的性质不同而有所不同。只是承担具体责任的大小，往往因学校所负注意义务等方面的不同而有所区别。相对而言，寄宿制学校，尤其是那些收费昂贵、实行全封闭管理的贵族学校及其教师对学生所负的注意义务要高于一般的实行走读制学校及教师所负注意义条学校及教师对无民事行为能力学生所负注意义务要高于对限制民事行为能力学生所负的注意义务。所以，一旦发生学生伤害事故，负有较高注意义务的学校更多还原

【Abstract】 Eeach time people talk about the injury accidents on the campus, they always means the injury accidents that happen on the campus. In theory, there are several definitions about it. Some define it as faulty injury accidents at school and some define it as the accidents of the students in the charge of the schools, and some others view it as injury accidents that happen on the campus. The definitions above don’t make clear its denotation and connotation that it is too narrow in subjectively or too wide in the injuried objects or too small in space.In author’s opinion, they are the accidents that the kind garteners, pupils and middle-school students are injuried or die or injure others and even cause others to die in the caurse of learning or in taking part in schools educatinol and teaching activities inside or outside the schools or inside other living and teaching establishment in the charge of the schools. That is to say, it is both a time conception and space conception. As long as it is connected with the school’s teaching and educting accitivities, it belongs to the injury accidents on the campus, even though they happen outside schools.The accidents burden the injured heavily economically as well as causing the injured and thair family’s unhappiness or even lifelong pain. In judical practice, schools are charged without exception, which causes much confusion and great uneasiness to educational managements, schools and teachers. Although Educational Department laid down regulation "How to deal with the accidents on the campus" in June, 2002, the present lawhasn’t made any regulations about it, and owing to judges’ defferent understanding of the regulation and rulers, counts are not in line with each other both in views and in practice about whether schools take legal liability and what kind of legal liability schools should take and whether pubic schools and private schools, especially noble schools take the same legal liability and have, the same characteristic.In my view, until the relationship between schools and the students and the guardians as well as schools’ legal position and the grounds on which schools take lagal liavility must be clarified, their liability will be albe to be identified properly. At present, there are two views about the relationship between the nonage and guardians. They are Guardianship Automatical Transference Theory and Guardianship Transferance In Trust. As a matter of fact, the views above are derectly quoted from Quardiasnship syestem in civil legal relationship and the legal relationship between schools and the students are defined as guiding and being guarded. The author questions the views on the characeristic of Guardian syestem and content and the result of transference and so on. I believe the legal relationship between them is not a simple civil relationship but a compound educational legal relationship. Education, management and protaction constitute its basic content, which has both civil nature and executive nature. Though schools’ liability like education, protection and management is similar to guardians’ obligation in a way, thre are great defferentes between them in legal sources of obligation and the retical grounds and time and space of performing liabilities. Schools’ taking charge of their ownactions and guardians taking change of another person’s action resemble in appearance but quite different in nature.As a subjects of compound educational relationship, schools and students take legal liability of one another. Schools’ taking change of the injury in perfoming their duty is executive or civil compensation, which is regulated differently in different countries. According to civil legal principle and legislative regulations of our country, schools shall take the legal liability of this kind in principle. Referring to the legislation of Roman legal genealogy and judical practice of British legal genealogy and considering Chinese social situation, the majority tend to believe general liabitity for fault should be adopted in reference更多还原