论比较过错制度在故意侵权中的适用

On Application of Comparative Fault to Intentional Tort

传统侵权法拒绝将比较过错制度适用于故意侵权领域,作为拒绝适用依据的"性质不同"理论、"补偿受害人、威慑并惩罚侵权人"的政策依据及故意侵权不能比较之传统规则,都受到一定的挑战。因果关系分配责任之标准、"性质不同"理论的外强中干、单独侵权人应为各自行为的份额负责任、严格责任领域适用比较过错的尝试等都为比较过错适用于故意侵权提供了合理性依据。在解决"过失侵权人可能承担高于故意侵权人比例的责任、不可知或非当事人的侵权人过错比例能否比较及受害人不能受偿部分如何分配"这些问题的基础上,未来《民法典·侵权责任法》应当考虑将比较过错制度适用于主观故意不明显的故意侵权、主观故意明显但有诱发性原因的故意侵权等特殊领域,当事人的过失可减轻故意侵权人责任,以及将比较过错制度适用于一般情形下过失侵权人责任比例的确定,这不涉及故意侵权人责任的减轻。

Traditional tort law refused to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort area,but the＂different-in-nature＂theory,policy argument including compensating victim,deterrence and punishment of tortfeasor,as well as traditional rule,are to some extent challenged. While the standard to allocate liability based on causation,＂different-in-nature＂rule＇s superficial strength,separate tortfeasor should be responsible for the share he caused,the attempt to apply comparative fault to strict liability furnish the basis to apply comparative fault to intentional tort. Based on the resolution of the problems such as that the negligent tortfeasor may bear more responsibility than intentional tortfeasor,whether the fault of the unknown tortfeasor in litigation could be compared as well as how to allocate the uncompensated share of plaintiff,it is proper to apply comparative fault system to intentional tort with inconspicuous intent,intentional tort with obvious intent but provoked by the plaintiff,and to the circumstance where the share of the negligent tortfeasor should be counted.