论文部分内容阅读
原因力作为我国数人侵权体系因果关系认定及责任分担的特色规则,在现有定位上体现出了事实/法律因果关系理论的双重属性。但这种综合式的定位也带来了一些问题:首先,原因力理论的实质与内涵并不明确;其次,在确定数人侵权责任分担中所起的作用也并不明确。一方面,原因力理论在事实因果关系层面上与“实质因素说”关系具有可对比性;另一方面,其在法律因果关系层面与“比较过失说”也存在对比性。因此,把《欧洲侵权法原则》与我国《侵权责任法》进行综合对比后可以发现,我国《侵权责任法》因果关系体系未区分事实因果关系及法律因果关系。这种混同使得原因力理论在实际运用中间接等同于因果关系理论。因此,数人侵权中的原因力在事实因果关系层面并无存在价值,在法律因果关系层面的作用也应做限缩解释。
As the characteristic rules of cause and effect relationship and responsibility sharing in several human rights infringement systems in China, the reasoning power reflects the double attribute of the factual / legal causality theory in the existing orientation. However, this comprehensive orientation poses some problems as well: First, the substance and intension of the theory of causality is not clear; secondly, the role of the theory in determining the share of the tort liability of several people is not clear. On the one hand, the theory of causation is comparatively contrasted with the “substantive factors” at the level of factual causality; on the other hand, it is also contrasted with the “comparatively negligent theory” at the level of legal causation. Therefore, a comprehensive comparison between the “European Torts Law” and China’s “Tort Liability Law” shows that the causal relationship system and the causal relationship between law and causation in China’s Tort Liability Law have not been distinguished. This confusion makes the theory of causal theory in the actual use of indirect equivalent causation theory. Therefore, the reason for the number of infringement does not exist at the level of factual causality, and the role of legal causality should be limited to explain.