特殊体质受害人的侵权法救济——兼评指导案例24号

Tort Remedies for Victims of Special Constitutions——Comment on Guiding Case No.24

指导案例在司法实践中是如何被"参照"的,体现了指导案例独特的约束力。指导案例24号的规则和域外的蛋壳脑袋规则在体系结构和内容上存在明显不同。以中国裁判文书网中的相关民事判决为样本,对其中参照和没有参照指导案例的判决加以比较,发现指导案例不仅在交通事故领域,在人身权侵权、医疗侵权等领域也有影响力。司法实践通过损害是否可以预见、区分体质和疾病、将特殊体质的作用归类为"诱因"等方式,拒绝在一些案件中参照指导案例。这种偏离指导案例时的正当化说理其实是案例区分技术的中国版本,其恰恰证明而非否定了指导案例的约束力。

The way how the guiding cases are referenced to in judicial practice reflects the uniquebinding force of them. The rules governing Guiding Case No. 24 is obviously different from its overseascounterpart, namely Eggshell Skull Rule, both in form and content. Basing on samples of related civil judgmentscollected from China Judgments Online, this study makes a comparison and contrast between verdictstaking or without taking the guiding cases for reference thus concludes that the guiding cases have influencednot only in transportation accident cases, but also in personal rights infringement, medical tort and otherfields. The guiding case is refused to be referred to in some cases with reasons such as unpredictable damage, disease rather than weak constitution, remote cause instead of proximate cause. The justification of thedeviation from the guiding case is actually the Chinese version of the legal technique of distinguishing cases,which proved rather than denied the binding force of the guiding cases.