摘要
劳动者遭遇第三人侵权时,既可以主张工伤保险理赔,又可以主张侵权损害赔偿。二者的关系在司法上长期未有定论,而2014年出台的《最高人民法院关于审理工伤保险行政案件若干问题的规定》试图解决这一问题。通过对954份裁判文书的收集和分析,可知该规定在实践中远未取得一锤定音的预期效果,司法机关对于工伤理赔和侵权损害赔偿的关系仍有显著的认知分歧。究其原因,该规定本身含义不清,又缺乏立法的支撑,且与行政规则衔接不紧密。为此应当从学理上澄清工伤保险与侵权责任的关系,运用多种解释方法开示该规定的意涵,从而选择合理的裁判模式。
When workers encounter third-party torts,they can claim compensation either for industrial injury insurance or for third-party tort.The relationship between the two poses an open question to the judiciary for a long period of time,which was the subject of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Industrial Injury Insurance issued in 2014.According to our analysis of 954 judicial documents,it can be verified that the provision aforementioned is far from achieving the once-for-all effect in practice as expected.Cognitive divergence is still significant among judicial authorities in regard to the compensation for industrial injuries or tort damages.This problem derives from the ambiguous contents of the provision,its lack of legislative support,as well as the inadequate connection between legal provisions and administrative rules.Therefore,it is necessary to clarify the relationship between industrial injury insurance and tort liability from the theoretical perspective by employing multiple interpretation methods on the meaning of the provision,so that a reasonable choice can be made among judgement models.
出处
《中外法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第3期745-764,共20页
Peking University Law Journal
关键词
工伤保险
行政给付
第三人侵权
司法适用
法律解释
Industrial Injury Insurance
Administrative Supply
Third-party Tort
Judicial Application
Legal Interpretation
