高空抛物案的法律适用问题研究.pdf

I 内 容 摘 要 随着我国社会发展，城市化步伐加快，高层住宅的增加，高楼抛物伤人事件时有出现 在立法没有明确规定的情况下， 司法实践中不同的判决造成了相关法律适用的混乱， 从而使高空抛物致人损害成为社会各界争议的话题， 理论界对高空抛物责任的承担也存在着纷繁复杂的争议， 进而影响了司法实践的统一和权威 因此， 笔者撰写此文的目的就是通过对目前法院的做法和理论界不同学说的分析， 从法律经济分析的角度阐释由建筑物住户承担高空抛物致人损害赔偿责任的合理性， 并在此基础上提出自己的立法建议本文除引言和结语外，共分为四部分 第一部分文章先引出两个司法实践中的案例， 案例中两个法院对性质相似的高空抛物案作出的判决结果是大相径庭： 重庆法院判决建筑物的住户承担赔偿责任，而济南法院却驳回了原告的起诉针对这种情况，本部分提出了案例的争议焦点即高空抛物致人损害的赔偿责任是否应该由一定范围的建筑物住户来承担 第二部分介绍了高空抛物致人损害在立法、实务界和理论界的现状在立法上， 国内和国外都没有关于高空抛物侵权的立法规定， 这是侵权法上的一个特殊问题， 从而造成了在实务界中地方法院针对类似案件作出的判决结果大不相同。

在理论界，不同的学者都提出了各自不同的观点，大致分为肯定说和否定说肯定说又分为公共安全说、同情弱者说、损失分担说和公平责任说；否定说分为自担损失说和社会保障说 第三部分是本文的重点 首先， 笔者对高空抛物致人损害的不同学说进行评析后， 认为现有理论不足以支持由住户承担赔偿责任的观点， 然后又对司法实践中法院运用类推适用的做法进行了剖析在现有法律制度下， 一般侵权行为、 共同危险行为和建筑物致人损害与高空抛物侵权具有相似性， 但通过对运用类推适用方法的分析， 得出结论是高空抛物致人损害是不能类推适用前面三种侵权行为的， 法院在司法实践中运用这种方法是值得商榷的 其次， 笔者从经济学的原理和相关概念对高空抛物致人损害进行了理论分析 从经济学角度讲， 侵权行为法就是要消除因侵权行为而导致的负外部效应， 高空抛物这种侵权行为造成了负外部效应， 但又不能通过一般的途径即公共政策和市场方法解决， 只能通过法院的判决解决这种负外部效应 而利用汉德公式得知， 当事故的预防成本小于预期事故II 成本（B

第四部分针对高空抛物致人损害提出了立法建议，高空抛物致人损害应该从归责原则和责任形态上建立相应的规则体系笔者通过比较分析， 认为高空抛物侵权应该适用过错推定归责原则， 这样的规定能够体现立法的初衷， 从而保护受害人的合法权益 在责任形态上应该适用按份责任，按份责任会更好地救济受害人，也能降低此类事件处理的社会成本,而适用连带责任却会增加判决执行的难度，徒增大量社会成本 关键词：关键词：高空抛物致人损害 一般侵权行为 共同危险行为 法律经济分析 I Abstract As the society develops, urbanization pace acceleraties and high-rise dwelling house increases,the event caused by throwing objects from the high building to injure somebody occurs frequently. Under the condition of having unclear stipulation in legislation,in judicial practice,the judgements of different courts have brought about chaos in the application of relevance law,which makes throwing objects from the high building to injure somebody becoming the topic of disputes of every field in the society.There is complicated dispute about the throwing liability from the building that affects judicial practices and authority in the theoretical field .Therefore,the purpose of this thesis is to expound of a certain range of householders assuming the liability of throwing objects from high building from the angle of economical analysis of law and bring forward my suggestions on legislation here on the basis.This thesis is divided into four parts. The first part offers two cases from judicial practice,court decision results are to be very different,Chongqing court decided a range of householders to undertakes responsibility,but Jinan court charging have rejected a plaintiff.Specifically for this condition,this have brought forward focal point of the case is that throwing objects from the builiding to cause person damages whether the building householders bear responsibility of compensation. The second part has introduced that current situation about the personal damage caused by throwing objects from the builing in legislative,practical and theorytical field.There isn’t specifically the high building throwing tort abroad and in the homeland in legislation,this is a peculiar problem on tort.In reality,courts have different result about the similar law case,which cause chaos in judicial practice. In the theory field,the different scholars brought forward each's different viewpoint which is divided into affirming speaks and negative speaks.Affirm of the inside is that common safety says,the impartial responsibility feeling pity for the weak saying,losing to share responsibility and justice saying; Deny of the inside is losing to taken by himself and social security saying. II The third part is the main body of this thesis.First this author has carried out commenting on different scholars and has suggested that the author approves of certainly saying but has pointed out whose defects. Now available theory can not support the building throwing tort responsibility undertaking responsibility by the householders completely.Then author analyses that analogy procedure suitable for use in judicial court hasn’t been supported by present theory.Under now available legal system,the general tort,quasi joint act of tort and building liability have similarity with personsonal damages by throwing objects ,but comes to a conclusion is that personal damage by throwing objects can’t analogize this three kinds tort, that the courts appling analogy in judicial practice is incorrect. Secondly,the thesis makes use of the economics principle and the relevance concept to carried out theoretical analysis on throwing objects tort from the building.As for economics angle, law of torts is to need to remove the negative outside effect because of tort leading,the high building throwing tort has brought about the negative outside effect,that can not be solved by the common approach that is public policy and marketplace method,which can only resolve this negative outside effect by court decision.But the formula making use of Hander is informed of that the accident taking precautions against cost be smaller than anticipate that accident costs,the building householders does not fullfil pa。