中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析

中国政法大学 硕士学位论文 中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析 姓名：周波 申请学位级别：硕士 专业：民商法学 指导教师：王卫国 20070301 摘 要 1 中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析 摘 要 面对高空抛物侵权案件的受害人和绝大多数无辜的被告，法律应 当如何抉择？这并不是一个十分容易回答的问题。为了寻找答案，本 文共分五章对这个问题进行了讨论。 第一章首先对中美两国六个典型高空抛物侵权案件进行了类型化 分析，指出问题的难点在于建筑物非由一人管领的案件中高空抛物侵 权责任的认定。 在此基础上，第二章从理论层面将中美两国司法实践中的做法总 结为三种理论形态，即： “因果关系推定”理论、 “过错推定”理论和 “事实自证”规则。同时，对目前中国理论界的一些观点也进行了有 针对性的分析。而为了更好地把握美国的“事实自证”规则，本文较 为详细地介绍了该规则的确立过程、法律效果和适用要件，尤其对与 本文有关的信息掌握程度、数个被告等对该规则适用具有影响的几个 方面，结合美国的判例和论著进行了分析讨论。 第三章比较了中美两国责任认定理论的异同，指出“事实自证” 规则与“过错推定”理论无论是在适用前提、推定内容、免责条件方 面，还是在蕴涵的精神、追求的目的方面，都有着高度的一致，因此 可以将两者归结到一起一并对待。而“因果关系推定”则与前两者存 在较大的差异，应当与前两者区别对待。 第四章从举证责任分配、法律的预测功能以及法律文化等三个方 面对上述三种理论进行了细致分析。在本文看来， “事实自证”和“过 错推定”两种理论都没有改变当事人之间举证责任分配的基本原则， 而且符合日常生活经验法则； “因果关系推定”理论不仅改变了当事人 之间举证责任的分配，与举证责任分配的基本法理相违背，而且也有 悖于日常生活经验常识。从法律的功能层面看， “因果关系推定”理论 更是与法律的预测功能截然相反。而在法律文化层面，虽然“因果关 系推定”理论有其形成和存在的基础，但它却与正义理念以及实现正 义的方式存在着不协调的地方，并使侵权法与其他法律部门之间的界 限和功能混淆不清，因而缺乏合理性和正当性。 基于上述比较分析，本文结语部分得出了两个结论。第一，在类 中国政法大学硕士学位论文 中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析 2 似高空抛物致人损害这样的因果关系缺乏确定性的案件中，风险和损 失的分配需要更多地从利益平衡和行为导向的政策层面去考虑，而不 是拘泥于公式化的解决方案。第二， “因果关系推定”理论和“过错推 定”理论都是服务于这种政策选择的推理工具，但相比较而言，后者 更符合既有的法律体系、法律原则，因而也更符合人类对于正义的追 求。 关键词：高空抛物、侵权责任、因果关系推定、过错推定、事实 自证 ABSTRACT 1 A COMPARISON OF THE COGNIZANCE OF TORTIOUS LIABILITIES IN CASES OF THINGS THROWN OFF BUILDINGS BETWEEN P.R.C. AND U.S.A. ABSTRACT What is the appropriate decision for law in the face of the victim and the multiple defendants in cases of things thrown off buildings? It is a hard question. In order to find out the answer, this thesis is divided into five chapters. In chapter I, six representative cases taken from China and America have been categorized into three types. It is found that the last type, the building belonging to more than one person, is the most difficult one when liability to be fixed on. In chapter II, three types of theories have been made out in this article from the judiciary practice in China and America, which are named as Presumption of Causation, Presumption of Fault and Res Ipsa Loquitur. At the same time, some typical views arising in China also have been examined. In order to understand the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur clearly, its establishment, legal effects and conditions have been talked about in detail. Besides, some questions, such as the accessibility of information and multiple defendants, have been analyzed according to some famous American cases and writings. In chapter III, comparing the similarities and differences between the theories in China and America, the author points out that Res Ipsa Loquitur 中国政法大学硕士学位论文 中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析 2 and Presumption of Fault share the same characters not only in preconditions, contents of the presumption and immune conditions, but also in spirits and objectives. Accordingly, the two doctrines should be treated equally. Contrarily, Presumption of Causation is different from the other two, and should be treated in another way. In chapter IV, the three mentioned theories have been fine-drawn in three areas: allocation of burden of proof, the function of prediction of law, and legal culture. The author believes that Res Ipsa Loquitur and Presumption of Fault do not change the allocation of burden of proof, and that both of the doctrines accord with the rule of life experience. Unfortunately, Presumption of Causation changes the allocation and violates the principles of law and the rule of life experience. Furthermore, the relationship between Presumption of Causation and the function of prediction of law is absolutely incompatible. On the level of legal culture, despite of some supporting reasons, Presumption of Causation can not be harmonized with justice and will mix up the boundaries and functions of the departments of law. For all the reasons above, the author draws two conclusions in the end. Firstly, in the cases lacking of the certainty of causation, for example, in the cases of things thrown off buildings, the distribution of risks and losses should, more and more, be calculated according to the policies of interests balancing and behaviors orienting, and not be limited in the formulized solutions. Secondly, both Presumption of Causation and Presumption of Fault are reasoning methods dedicated to such a policy-choosing. But, comparatively, the latter is more compatible with the current legal systems and legal principles, and as a result, is more compatible with mankinds pursuit of justice. KEY WORDS: things thrown off buildings, tortious liability, Presumption of Causation, Presumption of Fault, Res Ipsa Loquitur. 前 言 1 中美两国高空抛物侵权责任认定之比较分析 应当对人身伤害承担责任的人无法通过证据加以确 认的情况时有发生，就如同本案一样，所以，与其为了 让无辜的人承担责任而做出的牵强附会的法律解释以对 付这种偶然事件，还不如让伤害失去赔偿，只有这才更 合理，更符合法律的精神。 奥布赖恩法官1 前 言 高空抛物侵权事件已经日益成为现代社会生活的一大顽症，真可谓是“年年 岁岁花相似，岁岁年年人不同。”相同的是受害人近似的遭遇以及受害后找不到 加害人的无奈与气愤，不同的却是一个又一个遍布各地的受害人以及被他们诉至 法庭的为数众多的无辜“陪绑”者。其实，遍顾寰宇，又岂独是我中国面临此一 问题？各国皆然也！所以，在立法者和部分学者主张将建筑物抛物致人损害问题 作为单独的类型纳入到即将出台的侵权责任法的时候，我们不妨冷静地考察 一下别国在此问题上的做法，以收攻玉之效。而限于时间和资料，本文只对中美 两国在处理此类问题上的做法作一比较分析。2在研究方法上，则舍弃纯粹的理论 推导，从真实案例出发，从司法实践