被监护人致人损害侵权解释论研究

Interpretation of the Article 32 of the Tort Law

从《民法通则》到《侵权责任法》关于监护人责任的规定一直存在争论,从价值方面审视,可以发现我国的"并列关系说"和"主从关系说"都难以自圆其说,条文的价值判断前后存在矛盾,难以衡平各方主体利益。检讨之后发现,问题的症结主要在于责任能力制度的模糊、监护人责任基础的混乱、极端情形下价值的困境。比较研究表明,较为恰当的方法是以现有条文为基础,在解释论上构建"双重侵权模式",借助行为能力制度来构建责任能力制度,确认监护人过错推定侵权和有识别能力的被监护人过错侵权,并且在特殊案型中引进"弹性条款",重新回归传统大陆法系模式。

There is controversy about guardian’s responsibility in “the General Principles of Civil Law” and “the Tort Law”. From the point of value, neither “parataxis” nor “hypotaxis” can explain because the value judgment of the articles contradicts each other. The crux of the problem lies mainly in the ambiguity of the responsibility system, the confusion of the basis of guardian’s responsibility and the dilemma of value in extreme cases.The comparative study shows that the more appropriate method is to construct the “double tort mode” on the basis of the existing provisions, to construct the liability capacity system with the help of the capacity system, to confirm the presumption of the guardian’s tort and the identifying ability of the guardian’s fault tort, and to introduce the “flexible clause” in the special case, and to return to the traditional civil law.