侵权法专题(1)

侵权责任法、知识产权法历年真题试卷1及答案解析选择1. 甲、乙是同事，因工作争执甲对乙不满，写了一份丑化乙的短文发布在丙网站。

乙发现后要求丙删除，丙不予理会，致使乙遭受的损害扩大。

关于扩大损害部分的责任承担，下列哪一说法是正确的?(2010—卷三—23，单)A: 甲承担全部责任B: 丙承担全部责任C: 甲和丙承担连带责任D: 甲和丙承担按份责任2. 大学生甲在寝室复习功课，隔壁寝室的学生乙、丙到甲寝室强烈要求甲打开电视观看足球比赛，甲只好照办。

由于质量问题，电视机突然爆炸，甲乙丙三人均受重伤。

关于三人遭受的损害，下列哪一选项是正确的?(2010—卷三—21，单)A: 甲可要求电视机的销售者承担赔偿责任B: 甲可要求乙、丙承担损害赔偿责任C: 乙、丙无权要求电视机的销售者承担赔偿责任D: 乙、丙有权要求甲承担损害赔偿责任3. 周某从迅达汽车贸易公司购买了1辆车，约定周某试用10天，试用期满后3天内办理登记过户手续。

试用期间。

周某违反交通规则将李某撞成重伤。

现周某困难，无力赔偿。

关于李某受到的损害，下列哪一表述是正确的?(2011—卷三—6，单)A: 因在试用期间该车未交付，李某有权请求迅达公司赔偿B: 因该汽车未过户，不知该汽车已经出卖，李某有权请求迅达公司赔偿C: 李某有权请求周某赔偿，因周某是该汽车的使用人D: 李某有权请求周某和迅达公司承担连带赔偿责任，因周某和迅达公司是共同侵权人4. 大华商场委托飞达广告公司制作了一块宣传企业形象的广告牌，并由飞达公司负责安装在商场外墙。

某日风大，广告牌被吹落砸伤过路人郑某。

经查，广告牌的安装存在质量问题。

关于郑某的损害，下列哪一选项是正确的?(2008—卷三—16，单)A: 大华商场承担赔偿责任，飞达公司承担补充赔偿责任B: 飞达公司承担赔偿责任，大华商场承担补充赔偿责任C: 大华商场承担赔偿责任，但其有权向飞达公司追偿D: 飞达公司承担赔偿责任，大华商场不承担责任5. 甲到乙医院做隆鼻手术效果很好。

侵权责任法一、单项选择题：每题给四个选项，选项中只有一个答案是正确的，应试人员应将正确的选项选择出来，多选或不选均不得分。

1．甲、乙各牵一头牛于一桥头相遇。

甲见状即对乙叫道："让我先过，我的牛性子暴，牵你的牛躲一躲。

"乙说"不怕"，继续牵牛过桥，甲也牵牛上桥。

结果两头牛在桥上打架，乙的牛跌入桥下摔死。

乙的损失应由谁承担?( )A．甲应负全部赔偿责任B．应由乙自负责任C．双方按各自的过错程度承担责任D．双方均无过错，按公平责任处理正确答案:C解题思路：本题涉及过错责任原则、无过错责任原则、公平责任原则的适用问题对于动物致人损害，应理解为是由于饲养动物的独立行为致人损害，在此情况下，适用无过错责任原则如果动物致人损害，是由于人的过错行为引起的，则应适用过错责任原则动物致人损害，不存在公平责任原则的适用问题本题中，甲牛将乙牛撞下桥摔死，是由于甲、乙的过错行为导致的，因此，应按双方的过错程度承担责任因此，本题正确选项为C2．甲承租了乙的房子，租赁期间在乙的房屋四周违章堆放了易燃物，丙违章乱放烟花导致乙的房屋被毁，对乙房屋的损害，甲丙应承担的责任是：( )A．甲丙负连带责任B．甲丙负按份责任C．甲承担侵权责任，丙承担补充责任D．丙承担侵权责任，甲承担补充责任正确答案:B解题思路：本题涉及多因一果中的连带责任问题，依照《侵权责任法》第11条的规定，无意思联络的共同侵权的标准是，每一侵权行为都足以造成向一损害后果才构成连带责任因此，本题正确选项为B3．某年春节，村民张某和李某在自家门前放鞭炮庆祝过年。

两家相隔一条街，鞭炮均被扔到街中间燃放。

村民王某之子小王恰好路过，突然，一枚鞭炮向其飞来，并击中其眼，致使小王视力下降。

由于张某和李某所燃放鞭炮均为同一型号，故无法判断究竟是哪家的鞭炮致使小王受到伤害。

对小王的损害，应由谁承担?( )A．由张某承担B．由李某承担C．由小王自担D．由张某和李某负连带责任正确答案:D解题思路：本题涉及共同危险行为致人损害的责任承担共同危险行为是指二人以上共同实施危及他人人身安全的行为并造成损害后果，不能确定实际侵害行为人的行为共同危险行为人能够证明损害后果不是由其行为造成的，不承担赔偿责任本题中，张某和李某在街面上燃放鞭炮，属于可能危及他人人身安全的危险行为，由于他们的行为导致小王遭受损害，又不能证明是谁造成的，而张某和李某也无力证明损害非自己的过错所致，故应由其二人承担连带责任因此，本题正确选项为D4．王某一家三口到月亮花餐厅就餐，由于王某一家所坐餐桌紧挨着的包厢发生爆炸，导致王某一家一死一重伤。

一、单选题1、下列选项中，不属于《民法典》规定的应当适用无过错责任原则的是（）。

A.产品责任B.高度危险责任C.用人单位责任D.动物园饲养的动物致人损害正确答案：D解析：无过错责任原则是指根据法律明文规定，不论加害人是否具有过错，均须为其加害行为承担侵权责任的归责原则。

适用该原则的法定情形有：（1）监护人责任；（2）用人单位责任；（3）产品责任；（4）机动车与行人、非机动车间发生道路交通事故；（5）环境污染侵权；（6）高度危险责任；（7）饲养的动物致人损害（动物园致害是过错推定）；（8）建筑物倒塌致人损害；（9）医疗产品致人损害；（10）因帮工致人损害；（11）因帮工遭受损害；（12）遭受工伤但不属于《工伤保险条例》调整。

过错责任原则中，过错推定是指依照法律规定推定行为人有过错，其不能证明自己没有过错的，应当承担侵权责任。

动物园饲养的动物致人损害情形，应当适用过错责任原则，并且适用过错推定。

故该选项不属于应当适用无过错责任的情形，当选。

2、关于侵权损害赔偿责任的构成要件，下列表述正确的是（）。

A.损害结果只包括财产损害，不包括精神损害B.加害行为一定是行为人故意实施的C.加害行为和损害结果之间具有因果关系D.若是存在违法阻却事由，则可以减轻行为人的责任正确答案：C解析：A、损害包括财产损害和精神损害，故该选项错误。

B、加害行为不一定是行为人故意实施的，也可以是重大过失，还可以是无过错的行为。

故该选项错误。

C、加害行为和损害结果之间具有因果关系是侵权损害赔偿责任的构成要件之一，故该选项正确。

D、若是存在违法阻却事由，则行为人不需要承担侵权责任，故该选项错误。

3、甲到超市购物，保安表示必须存包后才能进入超市，甲因为赶时间只好存包。

过后甲越想越觉得自己的人格尊严受到了侮辱，认为保安此举就是觉得自己是小偷，一气之下，一纸诉状将该超市告上了法庭，要求超市承担侵权责任。

下列说法正确的是（）。

A.该超市侵犯了甲的荣誉权B.该超市没有侵权C.该超市侵犯了甲的人格尊严权D.该超市侵犯了甲的名誉权正确答案：B解析：首先，普通利益不同于权利，其具有极强的主观性，因人而异，缺乏客观标准。

1（多选题）小偷甲在某商场窃得乙的钱包后逃跑，乙发现后急追。

甲逃跑中撞上欲借用商场厕所的丙，因商场地板湿滑，丙摔成重伤。

下列哪些说法是错误的？A.小偷甲应当赔偿丙的损失B.商场须对丙的损失承担补充赔偿责任C.乙应适当补偿丙的损失D.甲和商场对丙的损失承担连带责任【答案】CD【考点】安全保障义务、过错侵权、补充赔偿责任、正当防卫【解析】《民法典》第1198条第1款规定，宾馆、商场、银行、车站、机场、体育场馆、娱乐场所等经营场所、公共场所的经营者、管理者或者群众性活动的组织者，未尽到安全保障义务，造成他人损害的，应当承担侵权责任。

据此可知，商场作为经营场所，其经营者依法负有安全保障义务。

通说认为，所有因日常社会交往进入商场的人，均属于安全保障义务保障的对象。

因此，丙属于安全保障义务保障的对象。

《民法典》第1198条第2款规定，因第三人的行为造成他人损害的，由第三人承担侵权责任；经营者、管理者或者组织者未尽到安全保障义务的，承担相应的补充责任。

经营者、管理者或者组织者承担补充责任后，可以向第三人追偿。

本题中，第三人甲因过错致丙人身损害成立过错侵权，甲应当对丙遭受的全部损害承担侵权责任；商场违反安全保障义务（因不作为导致地面过于湿滑），对丙遭受的损害具有过失并提供了间接的原因力，商场应承担与其过错相应的补充责任。

丙进商场是购买商品还是借用厕所不影响商场赔偿责任的承担，故A选项表述正确，不当选；B选项表述正确，不当选；D选项表述错误，当选。

《民法典》第181条第1款规定，因正当防卫造成损害的，不承担民事责任。

《民法典》第181条第2款规定，正当防卫超过必要的限度，造成不应有的损害的，正当防卫人应当承担适当的民事责任。

适用公平责任的前提条件有三：（1）加害人和受害人对损害的发生均无过错，因此不构成过错侵权；（2）加害人的行为不属于法律明文规定的无过错侵权，因此不构成无过错侵权；（3）不责令加害人对受害人予以适当补偿显然违背公平原则。

第1篇一、案例背景某市甲公司是一家专业提供代驾服务的公司，公司拥有一支专业的代驾团队，为司机提供酒后驾驶、司机疲劳驾驶、司机无驾驶证等情况下代驾服务。

某日，甲公司接到一客户乙的代驾服务订单，乙因酒后驾驶需要代驾。

甲公司指派丙作为代驾司机，丙驾驶乙的车辆将乙送至目的地。

在代驾过程中，丙在未告知乙的情况下，将乙的车辆停放在了一个不熟悉的地方，导致乙无法找到车辆。

乙报警后，警方介入调查。

经调查，丙的行为违反了甲公司的规定，且给乙造成了经济损失。

乙要求甲公司承担侵权责任，甲公司则认为丙的行为属于个人行为，不应由公司承担责任。

双方因此产生纠纷。

二、法律问题本案涉及的法律问题主要包括以下两个方面：1. 代驾服务中，代驾司机的行为是否属于职务行为？2. 代驾公司是否应当承担侵权责任？三、法律分析1. 代驾司机的行为是否属于职务行为？根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第三十四条规定：“用人单位的工作人员因执行工作任务造成他人损害的，由用人单位承担侵权责任。

”在本案中，丙作为甲公司的代驾司机，其代驾行为是甲公司经营范围内的业务，且在执行职务过程中给乙造成了损害。

因此，丙的行为属于职务行为。

2. 代驾公司是否应当承担侵权责任？（1）根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第三十四条规定，用人单位的工作人员因执行工作任务造成他人损害的，由用人单位承担侵权责任。

在本案中，丙作为甲公司的代驾司机，其行为属于职务行为，因此甲公司应当承担侵权责任。

（2）根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百二十一条规定：“当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定的，应当承担违约责任。

”在本案中，甲公司指派丙作为代驾司机，但丙的行为违反了甲公司的规定，给乙造成了经济损失。

因此，甲公司应承担违约责任。

（3）根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第二十六条规定：“因紧急避险造成损害的，由引起险情发生的人承担侵权责任。

”在本案中，丙在代驾过程中，未告知乙将车辆停放在不熟悉的地方，给乙造成了不便。

Question #1Every Saturday morning, Peter takes his six-year-old daughter to swimming lessons at Briarwood Fitness Center. He and his daughter are not members of the Center: he has merely bought a series of swimming lessons given in the Center’s teaching pool by Center staff. Normally, Peter sits beside the swimming pool while his daughter’s lesson proceeds. One Saturday morning, he leaves the side of the pool while his daughter is swimming. He wanders around the Center, inspecting the facilities. He watches some racketball games, looks into the beauty shop and cafeteria, then goes into the weight room. He decides to try out one of the weight machines.Remembering his healthy youth, Peter selects a very heavy weight. He releases the brake on the machine, which sustains the weight until the user is ready to exercise. He rapidly discovers that he cannot sustain the weight that he has selected. His body crumples under the weight. Peter finds that he can only get out from underneath the weight by twisting and falling out of the machine. In doing so, he severely injures his back.The weight machine in question is manufactured by DominaFlex, Inc. It bears a warning sticker next to the place where the user selects the weight to be lifted. The warning says: “WARNING. Always use spotters when you lift. Do not use this equipment without first receiving instruction or reading the information booklet.”A “spotter” is someone who stands by the machine while the user is using it, to watch, encourage and give assistance if needed. Peter says he did not know what the term means.Members of the Center are given instruction in how to use the weight machines before they are allowed to use the weight room. Although use of the weight room is supposed to be confined to Center members, there is no sign on the door of the weight room to that effect, nor has the Center put up any warning sign of its own by the machine. The instruction booklet was not left by the machine.Peter wishes to sue both Briarwood Fitness Center and DominaFlex, Inc. Advise Peter about the issues that would be raised in these actions.(Assume that the incident occurred in a jurisdiction that has not modified the traditional rules of occupier’s liability in any way, and where the law of products liability is based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section:402A.). Peter v. Briarwood1. Occupier’s liabilityBecause Peter was injured in a jurisdiction that has not modified the traditional rules of occupier’s liability, the first question must be what kind of ent rant he was, because Briarwood’s duty as occupier of the premises in question is different for different classes of entrant.The highest duty of care is owed to invitees. An invitee is either someone who uses a public space made generally available to the public at large (a public invitee) or someone who enters private premises to engage in some kind of business transaction that might benefit the occupier (a business invitee). Although many entrants use it, Briarwood Fitness Center is not a public building,so Peter cannot be a public invitee. Like many businesses, the Center is open to any member of the public who wishes to enter, but it is privately owned. If Peter is to be classed as an invitee, he can only be a business invitee.Peter is in the Center building to attend his daughter’s swimming lessons. He has paid the Center for those lessons, so he is plainly a business invitee when attending the lessons, even though he is not a member of the Center. However, Peter’s injuries were not sustained in the pool area. It is quite possible for a person’s entrant status to change from one part of a building to another. For example, if a hotel guest walks through a door clearly marked “No Entry: Staff Only”, he or she would cease to be an invitee and would become a trespasser.In the present case, Peter has left the part of the Center where he was clearly a business invitee and has gone into a part of the building that was only open to members. The fact that Peter was not a member does not necessarily mean that he became a trespasser when he entered the weight room. There was no sign on the door stating that the weight room was only open to members. Other parts of the Center, such as the beauty shop and cafeteria, were obviously operating as businesses with a general invitation to members of the public to go inside and do business. There was no visible sign to distinguish the weight room from those other businesses.A person can be a business invitee without actually conferring a benefit on the occupier, if the c ircumstances are such that the occupier’s premises are open to anyone who might confer a benefit. For example, any person who walks into a store during regular business hours is a business invitee whether or not he or she intends to buy a particular item and whether or not he or she actually buys anything. Peter would plainly have been a business invitee in the beauty shop and cafeteria. If he entered the weight room to check it out, possibly with a view to becoming a member, then he would be a business inv itee in the same way. The Center’s rule is that the weight room should only be used by members; it does not preclude non-members from even entering the room. Peter may well have remained a business invitee when entering the weight room. At the very least, it seems likely that he was a licensee, which is someone who enters premises with the permission of the occupier but for his or her own purposes, without the intention to confer a benefit on the occupier. The door of the weight room was open and there was no sign indicating that it was any more private than any of the other spaces in the Center. That should be enough to establish the Center’s permission for entrants like Peter to enter the room. Implied permission to use the machines in the room would be slightly more difficult to find, but in the circumstances it seems unlikely that Peter would be considered a trespasser. That is a possibility, however. He did not actually have permission to use the machines. The mere fact that he could walk freely into the room would not automatically create the impression that he could freely use the machines in the room.2. Occupier’s standard of careIf Peter was a business invitee in the weight room, then Briarwood owed him a duty of reasonable care, which would extend to warning him of any of the dangers of the property and also to making reasonable efforts to determine whether any such dangers existed. The machine had no warningsigns and there is nothing to indicate that Briarwood had made any effort to determine whether passers-by like Peter were using the machines. It may, however, have been an “open and obvious danger”, in which case Briarwood would have owed no duty to take protective steps in relation to it. The heaviness of the weights was obvious and the risk of lifting them should have been clear to Peter as well as Briarwood.If Peter was merely a licensee in the weight room, Briarwood’s duty would be confined to one of warning him about concealed dangers known to it but not him. As noted above, the dangerousness of the machine does not seem to be particularly concealed. An occupier is not liable to a licensee who is injured by a condition of the premises of which both are aware.If Peter was a trespasser when using the weight machine, Briarwood’s duty is on ly to avoid willful and wanton misconduct designed deliberately to harm him. Peter’s action against Briarwood would obviously fail if he fell into this category. There is nothing about the presence of the machine that amounts to a deliberate attempt by Briarwood to harm trespassers.3. Comparative faultIf Peter is entitled to recover from Briarwood for a breach of any of the occupier’s duties, his recovery may be reduced on account of his own contributory negligence. His decision to lift without a spotter was unwise, even though he says that he did not know what the warning sign about “spotters” meant. A reasonable person would realize the dangers in lifting a heavy weight without practice or training. It seems likely that Peter failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. If the injury occurred in a jurisdiction with a modified comparative fault regime, which denies recovery altogether if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the defendant’s, Peter’s action may fail completely.II. Peter v. Dominaflex1. Design defectBecause Peter suffered his injury in a state where products liability is governed by Section:402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, his action against Dominaflex will allege that the weight machine was a product “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user”. There is nothing to indicate that the machine was badly manufactured, so his action would have to allege that it was poorly designed. It operated exactly as intended: the whole purpose of the machine is to put some amount of stress on the user’s muscles. The design defect, if any, could only be the absence of some kind of fail-safe mechanism to take the place of a “spotter” for lone users, supporting the weight if the user could no longer handle it.Some Section:402A states test the defectiveness of product design by reference to the expectations of “ordinary consumers”, some by reference to a “risk-utility” standard, and some by a combination of both for different kinds of product (”ordinary consumer expectation” for simpleeveryday products, “risk-utility” for more complex ones). We do not know what test is applied in the jurisdiction where Peter was injured.The question whether an “ordinary consumer” would expect the machine to have a fail-safe mechanism would be one for the jury to answer applying common sense standards. Some weight machines do have foot-operated levers that support the weight, so an “ordinary consumer” might have the expectation that all machines should be equipped with something similar.If the “risk-utility” standard is applied, it will be necessary to determine whether the risks posed by the machine could have been reduced without lessening its utility. That will involve consideration of the cost of installing a fail-safe mechanism and its effect on the operation and ease of use of the machine.2. Effect of warningWarning labels can be sufficient to render safe a product that carries some inherent risk of harm. The weight machine in the present case bore such a warning label. However, that label used a rather technical term (”spotters”) and it referred to an instruction booklet. There was an obvious risk that the instruction booklet would not be kept with the machine at all times and that the machine might be used by users who would not able to consult the booklet first. In the circumstances, it seems unlikely that the warning would be sufficient to relieve Dominaflex from liability if the design of the machine were to be held to be defective.3. Comparative faultLastly, it is necessary again to consider the possibility that Peter may have failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. Any comparative fault on his part would have a different effect in the action against Dominaflex than it would in the action against Briarwood. In General Motors v. Sanchez (Tex, 1999), it was held that comparative negligence of a product user should only operate to reduce recovery if it goes beyond a failure to discover and guard against the defect in the product. Peter’s mistake was to use the machi ne without realizing that it could harm him if he chose too heavy a weight, because there was no fail-safe device. If the Dominaflex machine was defectively unsafe, Peter’s fault therefore seems to have been only a failure to recognize and guard against the defect. Applying the Sanchez test, that would not lead to a reduction of his recovery. His recovery would only be reduced if he had used the machine in some way that went beyond a failure to identify the danger created by its defect.。

第1篇一、案件背景某科技公司（以下简称科技公司）成立于2005年，主要从事软件开发、技术咨询、技术服务等业务。

该公司在经营过程中，发现市场上某知名企业（以下简称知名企业）开发的一款软件具有很高的市场价值。

经过调查，科技公司发现知名企业开发的软件在软件界面、功能等方面与自己的产品存在高度相似。

为了抢占市场份额，科技公司未经知名企业同意，擅自复制、修改知名企业软件的部分功能，并将其作为自己的产品推向市场。

知名企业发现后，认为科技公司侵犯了自己的著作权，遂向法院提起诉讼。

二、争议焦点本案的争议焦点主要包括以下几个方面：1. 科技公司是否侵犯了知名企业的著作权？2. 如果科技公司侵犯了知名企业的著作权，应承担何种法律责任？三、法院审理法院经审理认为，知名企业开发的软件属于著作权法保护的计算机软件作品。

根据《著作权法》的规定，著作权人对其软件作品享有著作权，包括复制权、发行权、出租权、展览权、表演权、放映权、广播权、信息网络传播权等权利。

本案中，科技公司未经知名企业同意，擅自复制、修改知名企业软件的部分功能，并将其作为自己的产品推向市场，侵犯了知名企业的著作权。

法院进一步认为，根据《著作权法》第四十七条的规定，侵权人应当承担停止侵害、消除影响、赔偿损失等民事责任。

因此，法院判决科技公司立即停止侵权行为，消除影响，并赔偿知名企业经济损失及合理费用共计人民币50万元。

四、案例分析本案是一起典型的侵犯著作权纠纷案件，具有以下特点：1. 侵权手段多样化：科技公司通过复制、修改知名企业软件的部分功能，将其作为自己的产品推向市场，侵犯了知名企业的著作权。

2. 侵权后果严重：科技公司的侵权行为导致知名企业失去了部分市场份额，造成了经济损失。

3. 法律适用明确：《著作权法》对著作权侵权行为规定了明确的法律责任，为法院审理此类案件提供了法律依据。

五、启示本案给我们的启示如下：1. 企业应加强知识产权保护意识，尊重他人的著作权，避免侵犯他人合法权益。

最新-杨立新《侵权责任法》专题讲座笔记各位朋友：大家好！今天我给大家介绍刚刚通过的《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》，《侵权责任法》是在12月26号通过的，在这次会议上通过的时候，一共有139票赞成，10票反对，15票弃权，这样一个通过的比例，我觉得还是非常满意的，因为我们看到《侵权责任法》这部法律，它在各方面的利益表现得都比较突出，各方面的利益冲突也比较明显，在这样一种情况下，《侵权责任法》能够这样一个高票通过，说明大家对这个法律是非常拥护的。

一、理解和适用侵权责任法要注意的问题（一）侵权责任法在民法中的地位我首先介绍一下《侵权责任法》在民法当中的地位。

《侵权责任法》在民法当中究竟是一个怎么样的地位？它是一个民事权利的保护法。

我们看到一部《民法》，首先应该是总则部分，然后要规定人身权和财产权这样一些权利，最后在民事权利受到侵害以后，怎么样去保护？怎么样去救济？那么这一部分就是《侵权责任法》所要承担的任务。

所以，我们都认为《侵权责任法》就是一个民事权利的保护法，是一个民事权利受到损害的救济法。

（二）侵权责任法的逻辑结构《侵权责任法》这一部法律，我们怎么去理解它，我想是不是应该是这样？那就是说，《侵权责任法》，现在我们一共是12章，在这12章当中，是不是可以把它分成两部分，第一部分就是关于总则方面的规定，那我们看到，《侵权责任法》并没有把它分成总则和分则，但是在它的具体内容上，从它的逻辑结构上看，它是分成总则和分则的，那么这样，从第一章到第三章这一部分，这一部分规定的主要内容应该总则部分的内容，那么总则部分的内容是什么？就是关于《侵权责任法》一般性规定，就是在处理所有的侵权责任纠纷案件适用的这样一些法律规定。

从第四章到第十一章，这一部分主要规定的是特殊侵权责任，相当于什么呢？相当于一个《侵权法》的分则，在这一部分里面，一个一个去规定具体的侵权责任，特殊侵权责任，它的规则是什么，它的责任形态是什么，它的责任是怎么去承担，所以这一部分当中，主要是讲具体问题。