中文摘要

随着社会生活的不断发展，顺风车走进了大众生活，顺风车也随着科技的发展，从好意同乘逐渐被赋予了新的内涵，网约顺风车因其具有方便快捷、节约资源以及减少出行成本等优点而受到欢迎。但是顺风车在实际运营中，乘车人受到顺风车驾驶员故意伤害的情形时常发生，引发了社会对顺风车安全性的质疑。顺风车驾驶员为自然人，即使要求其承担责任，但通常其赔偿能力较弱，因此受害人经常不能获得全额赔偿。顺风车网络平台在顺风车运营中起着关键作用，掌握顺风车运营的核心内容，其也应该承担相应的安全保障义务。

文章首先对顺风车的相关概念，以及顺风车涉及的法律关系和顺风车与网约车之区别等基础理论进行阐述，并说明为何将其与网约车平台相区别，采顺风车网络平台这一称呼的原因。接着对典型案例进行列举，说明目前顺风车网络平台安全管理不到位，需要进行完善。接下来对我国目前关于顺风车网络平台的法律规定进行梳理，可以发现目前还存在顺风车网络平台法律定位不清，顺风车网络平台承担安全保障义务缺乏必要理论依据，以及义务的限度不明晰的问题。

通过对各学者所持学说的整理，以及对域外相应立法的参考，得出我国顺风车网络平台的法律定位应该为安全保障责任人以及顺风车服务合同一方当事人的结论。紧接着，对顺风车网络平台承担安全保障义务的理论依据进行论述，主要包括危险源的开启、社会资源的节约，和获得利益的报偿，以及我国关于合同附随义务的相关规定。接下来又对安全保障义务的限度与内容进行探讨，可知我国要求经营者承担防范抽象危险的责任实为不妥。

最后针对上述研究，结合社会现实情况，对我国顺风车网络平台的安全保障义务提出建议。一是顺风车网络平台的法律地位需要在较高位阶的法律文件中进行统一规定，并对顺风车网络平台需要承担的安全保障义务的具体内容进行明确。

顺风车网络平台违反安全保障义务应依照《民法典》1198条第二款的规定进行处理，在侵权责任与违约责任存在竞合时，应依据现实情况，请求顺风车网络平台承担侵权责任或违约责任。

关键词：顺风车网络平台；安全保障义务；侵权责任；违约责任

Abstract

With the continuous development of social life, free riding has entered the public life.With the development of science and technology,free riding has gradually been given a new connotation from good intentions to ride together. Free riding on Internet is popular because of its advantages of convenience, saving resources and reducing travel costs. However, in the actual operation of free riding,the situation that passengers are deliberately injured by free riding drivers often occurs, which leads to the doubt of the safety of free riding. The hitchhiker is a natural person, even if he is required to bear the responsibility,his compensation ability is usually weak, so the victim often can not get full compensation. Free riding network platform plays a key role in free riding operation.To master the core content of free riding operation,it should also undertake the corresponding security obligations.

This paper first expounds the basic theories of the relevant concepts of free riding, the legal relationship involved in free riding,and the difference between free riding and onlinecar hailing, and explains why the term "free riding network platform" of post literary talent distinguishes it from online car Hailing platform. Then the typical cases are listed to show that the current free riding network platform security management is not in place, passengers encounter intentional injury of drivers often happen. Next, combing the current legal provisions of the free riding network platform in China,we can find that there are still some problems,such as unclear legal positioning of the free riding network platform, lack of necessary theoretical basis for the free riding network platform to undertake security obligations, and unclear limits of obligations.

Through the collation of the theories held by various scholars and the reference of the corresponding legislation outside the domain,it is concluded that the legal positioning of the freeriding network platform in China should be the person responsible for security and the party to the anonymous contract. Then, it discusses the theoretical basis of the safety guarantee obligation of the free riding network platform,including the opening of hazard sources, the saving of social resources, the compensation of interests, and the relevant provisions on the collateral obligations of the contract in China. Next, it discusses the limits of security obligations,mainly by comparing the relevant legal provisions similar to security obligations in Japan and Germany, we can see that it is inappropriate for China to require operators to bear the responsibility of preventing Abstract dangers.

Finally, in view of the above research, combined with the social reality,this paper puts forward some suggestions on the security obligations of free riding network platform in China. The first is that the content of the security obligations undertaken by the free riding network platform is mainly the audit obligations and supervision obligations. Then it analyzes the concurrence between the civil code and other laws.The third is to analyze the possible concurrence of responsibilities.

Key words: free riding network platform;security obligations; tort liability; liability for breach of contract