| 体育侵权:自甘风险还是过失相抵 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 李鼎.体育侵权:自甘风险还是过失相抵[J].武汉体育学院学报,2020,54(5):56-60. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 李鼎 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国政法大学 民商经济法学院, 北京 100088 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 中国政法大学博士创新项目。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 自甘风险和过失相抵是体育侵权案件中最常见的抗辩方式。前者将会免除加害人的赔偿责任,而后者只能按比例减少加害人的赔偿责任。虽然法律后果存在巨大差异,但目前对于体育侵权案件适用自甘风险,还是适用过失相抵,没有一个明确的标准,没有建构一套稳定的规则。从美国法的经验来看,通过对自甘风险进行分类来解决自甘风险和过失相抵的竞合问题,并不是一个成功的范例。实际上,自甘风险和过失相抵的主要区别在于受害人能否认知风险的存在。通过运动类型、违规程度、年龄和精神状况、参与的自愿性、专业程度等五个要素的综合考量,法官可以推知当事人的意思,进而从参加体育活动的行为来判断是否构成自甘风险,最终正确适用法律。
|
| 关 键 词： | 体育法学 体育侵权 自甘风险 过失相抵 |
| 收稿时间： | 2019-12-14 |
Sports Violation: Assumption of Risk or Comparative Negligence |
| |
| LI Ding.Sports Violation: Assumption of Risk or Comparative Negligence[J].Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education,2020,54(5):56-60. |
| |
| Authors: | LI Ding |
| |
| Institution: | Civil Commercial and Economic Law School, CUPL, Beijing 100088, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The defense of assumption of risk and comparative negligence is often used in the sports cases.The assumption of risk excuses the liability of the defendant,while the comparative negligence only excuses the liability partly.There is no existing standard between the assumption of risk and comparative negligence although there are differences between these two defenses,In the United States,the classification of assumption of risk to solve this problem proves to be unsuccessful.The essence of the problem is whether the plaintiff acknowledge the risk.Through the comprehensive consideration of sports type,degree of violations,age and mental health,voluntary participation,and professional level,the judge can infer the meaning of the parties and distinguish the assumption of risk and comparative negligence. |
| |
| Keywords: | sports law sports violation assumption of risk comparative negligence |
| 本文献已被 维普 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《武汉体育学院学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《武汉体育学院学报》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
