请求高手手工翻译成英文

来源:百度知道 编辑:UC知道 时间:2024/09/21 19:37:01
自2003年12月26日,最高人民法院公布《关于审理人身损害案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《司法解释》),首次规定了雇主替代责任制度以来,关于雇员在从事雇佣活动中致人损害的问题有了明确的法律规定。该《司法解释》弥补了长期以来我国由于没有规定雇主替代责任制度所存在的立法空白。并顺应国际民法之潮流,在雇主责任的归责原则上采用了无过错责任原则。在雇主承担责任后对雇员的追偿权的规定也颇具科学性。但通过比较各国法律规定,本人认为,我国《司法解释》关于雇主责任制度的规定虽然在归责原则上采取了无过错的严格责任制度,关于雇主赔偿后的追偿方面也作出了详细的法律规定。但某些具体方面似乎还存在着值得商讨的地方。例如:是否在所有的情况下,让雇主替代雇员赔偿都对受害人有利。雇员行为是否成立侵权行为才能要求雇主承担责任,雇员从事职务行为的认定等方面。本文将比较各国关于雇主责任制度的规定来阐述本人对《司法解释》的个人观点。以期在未来立法活动中能加以完善。

Since December 26, 2003, the Supreme People's Court announced "to hear about cases of personal injury law applicable to the interpretation of a number of issues" (hereinafter referred to as "judicial interpretation"), for the first time provides for vicarious liability of employers system, about the employees engaged in employment activities Medium-induced damage to people with questions specific legal requirements. The "judicial interpretation" makes up for a long time because our country does not require employers to vicarious liability system of the legislative gaps that exist. And conform to the trend of international civil law, at the employer's duty liability on the principle of using the principle of no-fault liability. Duty at the employer after the employee's right to recover also quite scientific. However, by comparing the national legal provisions, in my opinion, our country, "judicial interpretation" regarding employer