论文部分内容阅读
对《侵权责任法》规定的安全保障义务,学界探讨很多。但是,首先忽略了这一完全列举的立法方式具有外延不周延的缺点。在对该法进行司法解释时,应就责任主体进行扩张解释,将责任主体进行类型化划分和反思就显得很有必要。其次,在安全保障义务的内容上,并未明确指出其保护的范围。再者,在责任承担方式上,《侵权责任法》规定的“相应的补充责任”给人以模棱两可的感觉。此外,在承担方式上未区分第三人是否为“终局责任人”而分别规定能否追偿,显然有欠妥当。
The “tort law” provides for the security obligations, the academic community to explore many. However, at the outset, the shortcomings of this completely enumerated legislative approach have been overlooked. In the judicial interpretation of the law, it is necessary to expand the interpretation of the main responsibility, the main responsibility for the type of division and reflection on it is necessary. Secondly, the content of the obligation of security does not clearly point out the scope of its protection. Furthermore, on the way of assuming responsibility, the “corresponding additional responsibility” stipulated in the Tort Liability Law gives people an ambiguous feeling. In addition, it is clearly not proper to assume that whether the third party is the “ultimate owner” or not in terms of the way of undertaking the respective obligations.