随着《侵权责任编司法解释》的出台,对高空抛物情形下的责任承担问题进行了细化,但同样还存在一系列未解决的问题。加害人不明情形下由可能加害人承担补偿责任是否具有正当性?在当今司法实践中存在哪些问题?该如何改进?本文探讨了可能...随着《侵权责任编司法解释》的出台,对高空抛物情形下的责任承担问题进行了细化,但同样还存在一系列未解决的问题。加害人不明情形下由可能加害人承担补偿责任是否具有正当性?在当今司法实践中存在哪些问题?该如何改进?本文探讨了可能加害人承担补偿责任的性质,包括公平肯定责任说、公平责任否定说、区分说。还分析了当今司法实践困境,如补偿主体认定困难、加重可能加害人举证负担、不同法院对补偿范围认定存在差异。最后阐述了可能加害人责任的限制适用,包括限缩责任主体范围、限定责任形式、缓和举证责任等。With the release of the Judicial Interpretation of the Tort Liability Code, the issue of liability in the case of objects thrown from high places has been refined, but there are still a series of unresolved issues. Is it legitimate for the possible perpetrator to bear the compensation liability when the perpetrator is unknown? What problems exist in today’s judicial practice? How to improve it? This article explores the nature of the compensation liability borne by the possible perpetrator, including the fair affirmative liability theory, the fair liability negation theory, and the distinction theory. It also analyzes the difficulties in judicial practice, such as the difficulty in identifying the compensation subject, the increased burden of proof for the possible perpetrator, and the differences in the scope of compensation determined by different courts. Finally, the limitation of the possible perpetrator’s liability is explained, including limiting the scope of the subject of liability, limiting the form of liability, and easing the burden of proof.展开更多
文摘随着《侵权责任编司法解释》的出台,对高空抛物情形下的责任承担问题进行了细化,但同样还存在一系列未解决的问题。加害人不明情形下由可能加害人承担补偿责任是否具有正当性?在当今司法实践中存在哪些问题?该如何改进?本文探讨了可能加害人承担补偿责任的性质,包括公平肯定责任说、公平责任否定说、区分说。还分析了当今司法实践困境,如补偿主体认定困难、加重可能加害人举证负担、不同法院对补偿范围认定存在差异。最后阐述了可能加害人责任的限制适用,包括限缩责任主体范围、限定责任形式、缓和举证责任等。With the release of the Judicial Interpretation of the Tort Liability Code, the issue of liability in the case of objects thrown from high places has been refined, but there are still a series of unresolved issues. Is it legitimate for the possible perpetrator to bear the compensation liability when the perpetrator is unknown? What problems exist in today’s judicial practice? How to improve it? This article explores the nature of the compensation liability borne by the possible perpetrator, including the fair affirmative liability theory, the fair liability negation theory, and the distinction theory. It also analyzes the difficulties in judicial practice, such as the difficulty in identifying the compensation subject, the increased burden of proof for the possible perpetrator, and the differences in the scope of compensation determined by different courts. Finally, the limitation of the possible perpetrator’s liability is explained, including limiting the scope of the subject of liability, limiting the form of liability, and easing the burden of proof.
