民法典安全保障义务条款与共享单车企业民事责任——以儿童骑共享单车发生伤亡事件为例

The Safety and Security Obligations in the Civil Code and Civil Liability of Bicycle-Sharing Enterprises

儿童骑共享单车发生伤亡的,共享单车企业不存在合同责任,是否承担侵权责任,取决于其是否承担安全保障义务。民法典侵权责任编第1198条限定了责任主体范围,导致学界对此条款是否构成安全保障义务的一般条款存在争议。在对第1198条定性未达一致的情况下,儿童骑共享单车发生伤亡的,可以通过法律解释,将共享单车企业纳入此条“经营者”的范围。具体是否应当承担责任,应根据儿童开锁情形进行判断。儿童使用工具强行开锁或者父母开锁后交儿童骑行发生伤亡的,共享单车企业不承担责任。因单车锁具设计有缺陷、车锁损坏未及时维修、前人骑后未关锁等原因使得儿童轻易开锁骑行发生伤亡的,应当认定共享单车企业违反安全保障义务,其不作为与儿童伤亡结果具有因果关系,且对损害结果能够预见而未为避免,存在过错,由其依据民法典第1198条第1款承担损害赔偿责任,但因儿童一方有过失得减轻责任。在存在第三人侵权(交通事故)的情况下,第三人的介入不中断共享单车企业的不作为与儿童损害之间的因果关系,共享单车企业应当在未尽到安全保障义务的范围内承担相应的赔偿责任。

If children ride a shared bicycle for casualties,the bicycle-sharing enterprise does not have contractual liability,and whether it bears tort liability depends on whether it undertakes the obligation of safety and security.Article 1198 of the Civil Code limits the scope of the subject of responsibility,which leads to controversies over whether this Article constitutes a general provision of the obligation of safety and security.The court may,through legal interpretation,bring the bicycle-sharing enterprise into the scope of'operator'provided in Article 1198 in the case where there is no unanimous characterization of the Article.Specifically,whether or not the enterprise should assume responsibility must be judged according to the circumstances where the children are unlocking bicycles.The bicycle-sharing enterprise does not bear civil liability if the injury occurs in the circumstances where the child forces open a lock on the bicycle by tools or where the parents unlock the bicycle and have it ridden by the child:the enterprise should be decided a civil liability if the injury occurs in the circumstances where there are defects in the design of a lock,where there are damages but has failed to repair them in time,or where the last rider has failed to perfectly lock the bicycle so that it is easy for the child to unlock it,for there is a causation between its act of omission and the injury to the child and it failed to avoid the foreseeable injury and therefore had the fault.It should pay the damage,for the injury under Paragraph 1 of Article 1198 of the Civil Code.The Children,however,have contributory negligence.In the case where there is a tort(traffic accident)by a third party,the intervention of a third party does not cut off the causation between the omission of the enterprise and the injury to the child and so the bicycle-sharing enterprise should still bare proportional liability to the extent of its failure to pay due diligence over its obligation of safety and security.