论文部分内容阅读
司法实务中,各地法院对因触电引起的侵权纠纷在处理上存在着较大差异。分析其原因在于,我国现有多部法律规范调整着此类侵权关系,如《民法通则》第123条、《电力法》第60条、《侵权责任法》第73条等,且这些规范间存有冲突。作为救济法的侵权责任法应当成为调整此类纠纷的规范依据。当然,仅仅依靠一部侵权责任法尚不能完全解决触电侵权中的所有法律适用问题,需要借助电力法等其它规范的综合协调。
In judicial practice, there are big differences in the handling of infringement disputes caused by electric shock in various local courts. Analysis of the reason is that many existing laws and regulations regulate such infringement, such as “General Principles of Civil Law” Article 123, “Electricity Act” Article 60, “Tort Liability Act” Article 73 and so on, and these specifications There are conflicts. Tort law as a remedy should be the norm basis for adjusting such disputes. Of course, relying solely on an Tort Liability Act can not completely solve all the legal issues involved in the TIA, but requires comprehensive coordination of other norms such as the Electricity Act.