揭开雇主“替代责任”的面纱——兼论《侵权责任法》第34条之解释论基础  

Revealing the Veil of Employer's Vicarious Liability:Further Study on the Basis of Interpretative Theory for Article 34 of Tort Liability Law

作　　者：郑晓剑[1] 

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2014年第2期146-159,共14页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费项目(项目号:T2013221005);厦门大学法学院青年教师科研基金的资助

摘　　要：我国民法学界和立法机关的主流观点认为,雇主责任的性质是替代责任,这种看法并不合理。替代责任原理及规则渊源于英美普通法,其立基于近代手工业社会,反映了当时较为简单的雇佣关系。到了现代工业风险社会,随着企业规模的扩大和雇佣关系的复杂化,这一原理及规则不能为遭受企业活动侵害的受害人提供充分的法律保护,也不能为雇主积极履行义务提供法律上的激励机制。因此,使用替代责任原理并不能对《侵权责任法》第34条作出合理、妥当的解释。目前,英美法上的"企业责任理论"和德国法上的"组织过错理论"反映了比较法上雇主责任领域的最新发展趋势。The major view of our country＇ s scholars and legislature consider that the legal basis of employer liability is vicarious liability, but this viewpoint is not so reasonable. Vicarious liability stems from the Common Law and emerged in the modern society reflecting the simple employment relationship during that time. Our society has become more industrial and flooded with risk today, with the expansion of enterprises＇ scope and complication of the employment relationship, the shortages of vicarious liability are gradually exposed： for one thing, such regulations cannot suffice the demand of relief from victims infringed by enterprises, for another, such regulations cannot stimulate employers into carrying out the relevant duties. Consequently using the theory of vicarious liability cannot properly interpret the article 34 of ＇ Tort Liability Law of PRC＇. At present in comparative law, the theory of enterprise liability in Common Law and the theory of organizational fault in German Law represent the latest trend of employer liability＇ s theoretical basis in the world, and this tendency may give us some instructions.

关 键 词：雇主责任 替代责任 企业责任理论 组织过错理论 《侵权责任法》第34条 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]