论文部分内容阅读
经营者违反安全保障义务所承担的责任有直接责任和补充责任两种,这两种责任均为侵权责任。最高人民法院2003年《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》)规定,在第三人侵权直接导致受害人损害的情况下,经营者因其未尽安全保障义务所承担的责任是补充责任。这里规定的补充责任是一种间接责任,不符合侵权法的基本原理,不利于促使经营者在安全方面加强管理,而且也不利于合理分配损害,补偿受害人的损失。本文就补充责任这一制度设定的合理性提出质疑,通过对一个典型案例的分析,提出了对这一问题的一些看法。
Operators who breach the obligation of safety and security have the direct responsibility and the responsibility to supplement two kinds, both of which are tort liability. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court in 2003 on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Compensation Cases for Personal Injury Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation”) stipulates that in case the infringement of the third party directly causes damage to the victim, the operator fails to fully guarantee his safety Obligation to bear the responsibility is to supplement the responsibility. The supplementary liability stipulated here is an indirect responsibility that does not accord with the basic principles of tort law and is not conducive to promoting the management of the operator in terms of safety. It is also not conducive to the reasonable distribution of damages and compensation for the victims’ losses. This article questioned the rationality of the system of supplement liability, and put forward some views on this issue through the analysis of a typical case.