论民法中的攻击性紧急避险

【作者】 颜良举；

【导师】 童伟华；

【作者基本信息】 华侨大学 ， 民商法， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 攻击性紧急避险作为私力救济的一种类型,不仅在现实生活中有重要意义,同时也是一项重要的法律制度。目前,我国关于攻击性紧急避险的立法及理论研究还不完善,仍有许多争议与问题有待解决。本文从攻击性紧急避险的概念、构成要件、合法性基础、行为规则模式的选择出发,在借鉴外国的相关法律实践及学说的基础上,完善我国攻击性紧急避险的相关制度。虽然我国立法并未对紧急避险的类型划分做出明确的规定,但从立法对紧急避险民事责任的规定,以及相关的判例和学说来看,可以认为包含防御性紧急避险与攻击性紧急避险两种类型。关于攻击性紧急避险的合法性依据,有三种理论:主观说、利益衡量说、放任行为说。这三种学说均有一定的合理性,但不能完全说明攻击性紧急避险的合法性依据。本文从人的“利己性”与“利他性”这一人性基础出发,以攻击性紧急避险法律制度的立法目的为评判标准,论证了攻击性紧急避险的必要性与合法性依据。攻击性紧急避险中的受害人是无辜的第三人,仅因意外的情形而使自己的合法权益成为“牺牲品”,所以大陆法系与英美法系国家一般都赋予受害人独立的严格责任请求权。我国的立法略有不同,根据《民法通则》和相关的司法解释,受害人只能请求引起险情的人承担责任或是请求受益人承担“适当的民事责任”。这种规定对受害人相当不利,常产生不公平的结果,也未能实现民事责任填补损害的功能。行为模式可划分为利己的行为模式、利他的行为模式和利己与利他相结合的行为模式三种,三种行为模式均有其合理的依据。但是,由于各种行为的类型、性质不一样,应适用的行为规则模式也不同。根据攻击性紧急避险自身所具有的特性,本文认为只有利己与利他相结合的行为规则模式才能作为调整攻击性紧急避险的行为规则模式,才能在攻击性紧急避险当事人之间实现利益均衡,实现当事人之间的权利义务的等利交换,实现攻击性紧急避险立法所追求的立法目的。攻击性紧急避险因其所保护的利益不同可以将其分为为自己利益而实施的攻击性紧急避险与为他人利益而实施的攻击性紧急避险。在不同的情况下,当事人的民事责任也就不同。在为自己利益而实施的攻击性紧急避险中,避险人应对受害人的损失进行完全的赔偿,只是在有引起险情的人的情况下其只承担补充责任。在为他人利益实施的攻击性紧急避险中,应解决的关键问题是如何处理避险人与受益人的关系。本文认为只有适用无因管理的规定,才能增进法律规范与社会价值之间的融合,树立良好的社会道德观念,建立健康的社会道德准则。更多还原

【Abstract】 The inculpatory act of rescue,which is one kind type of the private strength relief, not only has the vital significance in the real life, but also is an important legal regime. At present, our country’s the legislation and the fundamental research about the inculpatory act of rescue is imperfect, there still has many pending disputes and question needing to solve. In order to consummate related system of the inculpatory act of rescue in our country ,this article sets out from the concept of the inculpatory act of rescue, the constitutive requirements, the valid foundation, and the choice of mode of rule of conduct, and bases on using the related foreign legal practice and the theory for reference.Although the explicit stipulation on the type division of the inculpatory act of rescue doesn’t make in our country’s legislates, but in view of civil liability of the inculpatory act of rescue stipulated by the legislation, as well as the related legal precedent and the theory, it’s considered that act of rescue contains two kind of types, that is, recovery act of rescue and inculpatory act of rescue.There have three theories with regard to the valid basis of inculpatory act of rescue: subjectivism doctrine, the benefit weight doctrine, and the laissez faire behavior doctrine. But they cannot explain completely the valid basis of t inculpatory act of rescue. This article sets out from human nature foundation of selfish and altruistic nature, takes the legislation goal of inculpatory act of rescue as the judgment standard, and has proven the necessary and the valid basis of inculpatory act of rescue.The victim in the inculpatory act of rescue, whose legitimate rights and interests becomes victim only due to the accident situation, is an innocent the third person, therefore Romano-Germanic family and Anglo-American law system countries generally entrust the victim with the independent strict responsibility request power. Our country’s legislation has the slight difference, according to "the General provisions of the civil law" and the related judicial interpretation, the victim only can request the person causing the dangerous situation to undertake the responsibility or request the beneficiary to undertake the proper civil responsibility. This kind of stipulation is quite disadvantageous to the victim, often produces the unfair result, and also can’t realize the civil liability function of filling up the harm.The conduct mode can divides into three modes, that is, the self-regard conduct mode, the altruism conduct mode, and the combining self-regard with altruism conduct mode; three conduct modes have its reasonable basis. But we should apply with the different conduct modes basing on different conducts, which has dissimilar type and temperament. According to the characteristic of the inculpatory act of rescue, I think the combining self-regard with altruism conduct mode is favorable mode to adjust the inculpatory act of rescue, can realize the litigant’s benefit to be balanced in the inculpatory act of rescue, realizes the litigant’s rights and obligations to be equal in the advantage exchanges, realizes the legislation goal which the legislation pursues about the inculpatory act of rescue.The inculpatory act of rescue can divide into the inculpatory act of rescue which implements for oneself benefit and the inculpatory act of rescue which implements for other people’s benefit because of the benefit which its protects differently. In the different situation, the litigant’s civil liability is also different. In the inculpatory act of rescue which implements for one benefit, emergency people should carry on the complete compensation to victim’s loss, no more than the people who bring about the dangerous situation is existence; the emergency people merely undertake the supplement responsibility. In the inculpatory act of rescue which implements for other people’s benefit, the key question should solve is how to deal with relation between emergency people and beneficiary. In order to promote fusion between the legal standard and the social value, set up the good society morality, and establish the health moralism in the society, it should apply with spontaneous agency in the situation of inculpatory act of rescue which implements for other people’s benefit.更多还原