不完全行为能力人侵权责任构成之检讨

依立法者原意,我国侵权责任法第32条第2款系规定被监护人对受害人的无过错责任,且排除责任能力制度的引入。但此种规定过于偏惠受害人,对被监护人不公,不利于未成年人保护,与同法第33条发生评价上矛盾,与比较法上认识不合,实为法政策上失误。故应采客观解释,认为该款仅规制监护人与被监护人之间的内部求偿关系,被监护人责任之构成,则应适用第6条第1款之一般过错责任。至于责任能力制度之阙如,可以过错概念之操作暂时弥补其不足。监护人责任之基础,在于监护义务之违反,性质上属于自己责任、独立责任。监护人责任之构成适用第32条第1款之无过错责任,悖于立法目的,且与同法第9条第2款发生评价上之矛盾,自立法论而言,以改采过错推定为宜。解释论上,只能充分利用同条第1款后段之责任减轻规范,扩张监护人之责任阻却事由,对"行为人致人损害"要件作严格认定(尤其是要求行为人须具备客观过错),稍作弥补。此外,无论是监护人还是被监护人,都可能依特定要件,向受害人承担同法第24条之公平责任。在对受害人之关系上,监护人与被监护人承担连带责任。

According to the intention of the legislators, Paragraph 2 of Article 32 in Chinese Tort Liability Law regulates the liability without fault of the wards for the injured. Meanwhile, this paragraph excludes the application of the institution of capacity for responsibility. However, this paragraph originates from an error of legal policy. It＇s unjust to the wards and gives too much priority to the injured, which is against the protection of the minor and contradicts the legal thought of Article 33. It also contradicts the basic thoughts in comparative laws. So the objective interpretation of this paragraph should be adopted, that is, it deals only with the problem of the inside claim between the ward and his guardian. The liability of the ward to the injured should be decided according to Paragraph 1, Article 6 （the principle of fault liability）. The absence of the institution of capacity for responsibility can be made up by the interpretation of fault. The liability of the guardians has its roots in breach of the duty of guardianship. This is an independent responsibility and a responsibility for his own fault, not the so-called vicarious liability. According to the law, the liability of the guardians should be determined by Paragraph 1, Article 32 （liability without fault）, which is against the purpose of legislation and contradicts the legal thought of Paragraph 2, Article 9. Therefore, from the aspect of the future amendment of the law, fault assumption liability should be adopted to the liability the of guardians. But from the aspect of interpretation, we can only use the rule of mitigation of liability provided in Paragraph 1, Article 32, expand the application of the defenses which prevent the guardians from burden the liability, and interpret strictly the constitutive requirement of ＂the actor causes damage to others＂. Both the ward and his guardian have the possibilities of bearing the liability to compensate the injured on the basis of the principle of fairness （Article 24）, if the constitutive requirements of this principle are met. The ward and the guardian should undertake jointly and several liability for the loss of the injured.