论文部分内容阅读
本文所述案例判决表面上与目前多数学说和司法实践很不一致。从案例研究角度而言,此种情形既可以对判决本身展开批评,也可以在承认结论本身合理性的基础上,对判决理由进行重构,当然也可以通过各种论证主张该案确立了全新的规则。本评析过程不是简单地否定案例本身,而是提供较为温和的解决思路,试促进学说和实务的互动。本案中,本文认为主要可以确立的规则是,在共同侵权的案件中,不能确定侵权行为人责任分配的情况下,法院可以直接判定共同侵权人平分责任,以此确保受害人的利益。
The case judgments described in this article appear to be inconsistent with most current doctrines and judicial practices. From a case study point of view, this kind of situation can not only criticize the verdict itself, but also rebuild the reasons for the verdict on the basis of recognizing the rationality of the conclusion itself. Of course, the argument can also be argued that the case has been completely revamped the rule of. This review process is not simply to deny the case itself, but to provide a more moderate solution to ideas, try to promote the interaction between theory and practice. In this case, the article holds that the main rule that can be established is that under the circumstances of joint infringement, where the distribution of liability of the infringer can not be determined, the court can directly decide that the joint infringer should share the responsibility and ensure the interests of the victim.