高空抛物侵权问题研究
毕业论文关键词：高空抛物致人损害；责任归属;侵权主体;权利救济
Research on the problem of high altitude parabolic tort
Abstract: Along with the rapid development of economy, high-rise buildings have sprung up like bamboo shoots after a spring rain. In today's high-rise towers of infringement damages caused by the high streets and back lanes, building clear occur, caused a great threat to the safety of people's life. More worrying is, China's current laws and regulations are not clear on the building of tort made strong provisions, resulting in lack of law courts dealing with such cases according to law and the decision of the differ in thousands of ways, stability, authority and the trial results of the predictability caused serious damage. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on December 26, 2009 by China's "tort liability law" and formally implemented from July 1, 2010, the eleventh chapter eighty-seventh has made clear. Since the implementation of the provisions, while providing a unified standard for the trial of such cases, but there are still many problems and loopholes, the main controversy lies in two aspects of responsibility affirmation and imputation principle, put forward some reasonable suggestions to solve these two problems.
Key Words: the damage caused by unidentified throwing objects structure; liability; tort; remedy
目 录
摘 要 1
Abstract 1
一、高空抛物侵权概述 2
（一）高空抛物概念 2
（二）高空抛物侵权行为的特征 3
二、高空抛物适用何种规则原则 3
（一）过错推定责任原则 4
（二）公平责任归责原则 5
(三)无过错责任归责原则 5
三、高空抛物侵权责任主体的认定及抗辩事由的分析 6
（一）侵权责任主体的认定 6
(二)可能致害人针对侵权责任可行使的抗辩事由分析 7
四、对完善我国高空抛物侵权问题提出的建议 8
（一）引入社会救济和保险制度 8
（二）其他建议 9
参考文献 11
致 谢 12
高空抛物侵权问题研究 前言
《侵权责任法》出台前，我国各地法院对高空抛物侵权案件类的审理判决结果截然不同。
2001年6月20日发生的“济南菜板案”中，受害者孟老太太被楼上坠落的菜板砸中因抢救无效死亡，经公安机关调查无法确认行为人的情况下，受害者将整栋大楼住户及物业公司告上法庭，一审以原告不能明确被告、二审以原告不能举证证明侵权主体为由，驳回起诉。2000年5月10日“重庆烟灰缸伤人案”，被害人郝某被从天而降的烟灰缸砸中，当场昏迷，经抢救，虽脱离了生命危险，但留下了严重的后遗症，基本丧失了生活自理能力。公安机关立即对此案进行侦查但未能确定是何人所为，郝某将位于出事地点两幢居民楼的开发商及一定楼层以上的24户住户先后告上了法庭，一审法院依据过错推定原则驳回了郝某对于开发商的诉讼请求，判决其中的22户住户共同分担十七万余元的赔偿责任，后原告提起上诉，二审文持了原判。
上一篇：试析当今大学生信仰存在的问题