【作者】 孙莉；

【导师】 隋彭生；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 随着社会的发展,人与人之间的交往频繁,数人侵权行为大量发生。多数国家和地区规定了共同侵权行为,包括狭义的共同侵权行为、共同危险行为、教唆帮助侵权行为。除上述复数侵权行为外,还存在着无意思联络数人侵权行为。对无意思联络的数人侵权,外国法无明确规定,学者多从因果关系角度进行研究,我国学者将其作为一种特殊的侵权行为,并与共同侵权行为相结合进行探讨。对共同侵权行为的界定直接影响对无意思联络的数人侵权的认识,这种关联性也体现在民法典草案与侵权行为法学者建议稿中。最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)第3条规定:“二人以上共同故意或者共同过失致人损害,或者虽无共同故意、共同过失,但其侵害行为直接结合发生同一损害后果的,构成共同侵权,应当依照民法通则第一百三十条规定承担连带责任。二人以上没有共同故意或者共同过失,但其分别实施的数个行为间接结合发生同一损害后果的,应当根据过失大小或者原因力比例各自承担相应的赔偿责任。”该条文用直接结合、间接结合的表述扩大了共同侵权行为(以下若无特殊说明,均指狭义的共同侵权行为,即共同加害行为)的适用范围,将一部分无意思联络的数人侵权归入到共同侵权行为中。该规定引起了诸多争议。如何区分无意思联络的数人侵权与共同侵权,进而认定其责任承担呢?笔者运用实证的、比较的与类型化的方法对无意思联络的数人侵权进行探讨。论文在结构上分为三章:第一章是无意思联络数人侵权的概述,在比较学者对无意思联络数人侵权界定的基础上,笔者提出了自己对无意思联络数人侵权的界定并分析了其构成要件,强调了损害的“同一性”。第二章是无意思联络数人侵权规范的比较法分析,介绍了英国、美国、法国、德国、日本、我国台湾地区以及欧洲侵权法草案的有关规范,评价了我国学者关于共同侵权行为的观点和现有法律以及立法建议稿的相关条文。第三章是无意思联络数人侵权的类型与责任承担,笔者评析了以行为性质、因果关系、损害后果为标准进行的分类方式,赞成以因果关系为标准对无意思联络数人侵权进行类型化,即将其分为累积因果关系型的和结合因果关系型的两种类型,并以此分析其责任承担。最后是论文的结论部分,笔者认为共同过错仍然是共同侵权的构成要件,是共同侵权行为与无意思联络数人侵权的界限。无意思联络数人侵权中,数行为人承担的是连带责任,但这种责任与共同侵权中的连带责任不同,允许侵权人举证证明其行为与损害之间不具有因果关系而不承担赔偿责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 Along with the development of society, persons’communication is increasingly frequent, so the torts committed by several persons occur massively. Most countries and areas stipulate the joint tort, including the joint tort in a narrow sense, the joint dangerous act, instigating and aiding infringement. Besides above mentioned torts, there is also the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. Foreign countries and areas have no explicit stipulation on it, and scholars research it from the causal relation aspect. Scholars in China regard it as one kind of special torts and explore it along with the joint tort. The understanding of the joint tort directly determines the recognition of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. This correlation also manifests in the draft of civil law code and tort proposal book done by scholars.In the Supreme People’s Court’s“The Interpretation on the Several Issues of Law Application in Trying Physical Injury Cases”(hereafter referred to as“Interpretation”), Article 3 stipulates that,“If two or more persons cause injury with common intention or the common fault ,or the acts directly combine to give rise to one and single injury without common intention or the common fault, the joint tort is established and persons bears the joint and several liability according to Article 130 of the General Rule of Civil Law. If two or more persons’respective acts indirectly combine to cause one and single injury, they should bear corresponding compensation liability in proportion to their own fault degree and causative potency.”This article expands the scope of the joint tort (hereafter referred to as the joint tort in a narrow sense) with the direct combination and indirect combination, and it divides the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection into two and put one part into the joint tort. This stipulation evokes many controversies. How to differentiate between the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection and the joint tort, and how to stipulate the liability? In this paper, the author intends to use analytical、comparative and classified methods to explore the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection.The paper divides into three chapters in the structure:Chapter 1 is the outline of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. On the basis of the comparative analysis of other scholars’definitions, the author brings forth the definition of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection and analyzes its elements, and emphasizes“the identity”of the injury.Chapter 2 is the comparative analysis of the law of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. The author introduces the relevant rules of England, America, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan Province of China and the European draft of tort, and appraises the scholars’doctrine about the joint tort and the provisions of the present law and draft.Chapter 3 is the type and liability assumption of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. The author appraises the classification pattern on the basis of the act、causal relation and injury, and agrees with the classification with the causal relation criterion, which classifies the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection into the types of the cumulative causes and combined causes, on which to analyze the liability.The last part is the conclusion of this paper. The author points out that the common fault is still the element of the joint tort, and the boundary between the joint tort and the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. In the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection, the persons should bear the joint and several liability, but this liability is different from the joint and several liability of the joint tort, because it allows the persons to produce proof to prove their act and the injury exist no causal relation and therefore the person can bear no liability.更多还原