| The particularity of minors,the chaotic determination of the subject of litigation in juvenile infringement cases,the inconsistency between the responsible subject and the subject of compensation motivate us to re-examine the legal regulations on minor tort liability——Article 32 of China's Tort Liability Law,this article has only two brief provisions,and the expression is not complicated,but because there has not been a doctrine to interpret it to a perfect degree,leading to constant doctrine disputes,so the author is willing to contribute to the interpretation of the legal regulations,hoping that I can contribute some of my thoughts on the interpretation of the current Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law.The article focuses on the legal regulations on tort of a minor——Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law,based on the previous research,adopting comparative research,historical analysis,and normative analysis to discuss.In the introduction,I use the background and significance of the topic of minor infringement.The first,second,and third chapters of the article are the interpretation of the legislative background of Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law and the interpretation of paragraph 1 of Article 32 and of paragraph 2 of the law.Therefore,the specific content of the article is summarized as follows:The first chapter of the article is based on the legislative background,historical evolution,and legislative value orientation of Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law,and analyzes the background factors of the legal norms for minors' tort liability.This is not only for the following discussion and open up mind,it also lays a certain theoretical foundation,because in the later process of interpreting Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law,we must consider that it must be consistent with the overall value orientation of the Tort Liability Law and the concept of guardianship concept of China.The second chapter of the article demonstrates Article 32,paragraph 1,of the Tort Liability Law regarding the nature of guardian liability,the principle of imputation,etc.In terms of the nature of guardian responsibility,the nature of the guardian's responsibility is examined through comparative law,and then combined with The three doctrines of alternative responsibility,demonstrate that the final demonstration of the nature of guardian responsibility should be interpreted as a compromised alternative responsibility;on the principle of guardian liability attribution,first of all,it analyzes the connotation of the three major principles of liability in China,discusses the disadvantages of the principle of fault and presumption of fault on the principle of guardian liability,and discusses the principle of fault-free attribution from the positive.The advantage lies in the conclusion that the principle of guardian liability in China should be the principle of no fault,which is also a relatively consistent view currently formed in the academic circle.The third chapter of the article discusses the Article 32(2)of the Tort Liability Law,that is,the provisions on the liability of minors.It also enumerates the academic understanding of the provisions of paragraph 2 The doctrine of the relationship between them analyzes the irrationality in each doctrine.In the end,the author reinterprets Article 32(2)from the perspective of the purpose-limiting hermeneutics.Under this interpretation,the "property" in "minor advance payment" is only one of the foundations of fair liability in specific situations.The biggest advantage of this kind of explanation is that it overcomes the disadvantages of imputation of liability for violation of the law of tort liability under the guardian fair liability theory and the supplementary relationship theory.At the same time,under the framework of tort liability law,in combination with other legal provisions to interpret the capacity of civil liability of minors in China,Article 32 of the "tort liability law" can be reasonably interpreted in the entire tort liability law system. |
PDF Full Text Request