全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

共同饮酒致损情形下同饮人责任相关问题剖析
Analysis of Issues Related to the Liability of the Same Drinker in the Case of Damage Caused by Joint Drinking

DOI: 10.12677/DS.2023.94185, PP. 1368-1374

Keywords: 同饮人责任,安全注意义务,不作为侵权,高度危险责任
Liability of the Same Drinker
, Duty of Care for Safety, Infringement of Omission, High Hazard Liability

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

共同饮酒情境下饮酒人可能因陷入醉酒状态而产生死亡或者其他人身性、财产性损害,在损害已发生的前提下,与受害人共同饮酒的同饮人是否应当承担损害赔偿责任,以及该责任背后的法律构造如何,在学理和司法实践中均存在争议。因此有必要讨论同饮人责任的法律构造,在不作为侵权责任构造下对共饮人安全保障义务的来源等问题进行研究,并在明确该项责任法律构造的基础上,进一步探究共饮人应作何行为方可完满履行该安全保障义务,即研究共饮人在何种情形下会承担该项责任。
In the context of joint drinking, the drinker may fall into a drunken state and cause death or other personal or property damage, and whether the same drinker who drinks together with the victim should bear the liability for damages under the premise that the damage has occurred, and the legal structure behind this liability, it’s controversial in both academic theory and judicial practice. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the legal structure of the liability of the codrinker, study the source of the safety obligation of the co-drinker under the tort liability structure, study the safety obligation of the co-drinker, and further explore what behavior the codrinker should do to fully perform the security obligation on the basis of clarifying the legal structure of this liability, that is, study under what circumstances the co--drinker will bear the liability.

References

[1]  张玉东. 论我国侵权法中作为义务的认定机制[J]. 法学论坛, 2018, 33(4): 69-77.
[2]  程啸. 侵权责任法教程[M]. 第3版. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2017: 19.
[3]  赵家仪. 高度危险责任的功能与制度设计[J]. 私法研究, 2011, 10(1): 225-233.
[4]  曹险峰. 独立责任类型抑或减责事由——《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第76条的定位[J]. 法商研究, 2018, 35(1): 137-148.
[5]  薛军. “高度危险责任”的法律适用探析[J]. 政治与法律, 2010(5): 37-44.
[6]  张新宝. 侵权责任法[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2016.
[7]  王道发. 论管理人在高度危险责任中的安全保障义务——以《侵权责任法》第76条为中心[J]. 现代法学, 2019, 41(2): 104-118.
[8]  唐超. 论高度危险责任的构成——《侵权责任法》第69条的理解与适用[J]. 北方法学, 2017, 11(4): 81-95.
[9]  Presnell, T. (1994) Perez v. McConkey: The Tennessee Supreme Court Abolishes Implied Assumption of Risk after the Adoption of Comparative Fault in Mcintyre, 25 U. Mem. L. Rev. 291 (1994). University of Memphis Law Review, 25, 981-982.
[10]  李鼎. 论自甘风险的适用范围——与过失相抵、受害人同意的关系[J]. 甘肃政法大学学报, 2021(1): 128-143.
[11]  郑永宽. 过失相抵与无过错责任[J]. 现代法学, 2019, 41(1): 125-135.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133