过失实行行为的本质及其客观不法认定标准

On the Nature and the Determination Standards of Negligent Acts

过失实行行为的本质在于制造并实现不被容许的风险。对过失实行行为客观不法的认定,应坚持结果回避义务对行为是否制造了不被容许的风险判断的决定作用;结果回避的不可能性导致结果回避义务的无效性;当法益侵害结果的发生不在注意规范保护目的范围内时,应否定过失实行行为的存在;行为人违反结果回避义务制造并实现了不被容许的风险方能将结果归责于行为人;风险升高理论是对违反结果回避义务行为与不法结果在无法确证因果关系时仍应予以客观归责的补强;容许的风险和风险分配理论仅具有在立法层面对结果回避义务的规定起理论支撑作用,在司法适用上并无有价性,而作为两者下位规则的信赖原则,实际亦是一个无用的规则。

The nature of negligent acts is making and realizing intolerant risks. To determine the objective illegality of negligent acts, the decisive role of the obligation of result avoidance should be held in the judgment on whether the acts cause intolerant risks. The impossibility of result avoidance leads to the ineffectiveness of this obligation. If the infringement happens beyond the range of regulated protection, the negligent acts should be denied. If only the doers offend the obligation of result avoidance and make intolerant risks, they can be put under the imputation. The theory of risk rising is the supplementation that when there＇s no confirmed casual relationship between the offence against the obligation of result avoidance and the illegal result, the objective imputation should still be put. Tolerant risks and the theory of risk allocation only support the legislation＇ s regulation on the obligation of result avoidance, while having no value on judicial application. The principle of reliance, as the one under the theory, is actually a useless rule.