“紧急救助免责”规则的限缩适用与体系协调

The Restricted Application and System Coordination of the Rule of“Emergency Rescuer’s Exemption from Liability”

《民法典》新增第一百八十四条确立紧急救助人不承担责任的规则。从该条制定的历史来看,救助人免责的规定具有明显的“道德鼓励”色彩;同时,它与“通过过错程度决定责任成立”或“通过法官裁量酌减责任承担份额”的两种比较法模式均不相同。基于紧急救助对无因管理制度的隶属,有必要在遵循立法原意的前提下,对规范效果的妥当性加以检讨。在适用范围上,当存在职业救助、救助人有错误的危险认知、危险后果自始不能消除等情形时,救助人免责的规定自始需被限缩。在外部体系上,当紧急救助免责规定与正当防卫、紧急避险规定形成规范竞合时,存在归责标准的体系矛盾;受助人事前同意或事后承认适用委托的规定也与救助人免责规定相冲突。“道德法律化”之立法进程若缺乏体系性与技术性关照,势必导致解释学负担过重。在漏洞无法通过解释填补时,应对立法原意形成突破。

The newly-added Article 184 of the Civil Code establishes the rule that emergency rescuers do not bear liability.From the history of the formulation of this article,the provision of exemption from liability of the rescuers has an obvious color of"moral encouragement".Meanwhile,it is different from the two comparative law models of"determining the establishment of liability by the degree of fault"or"reducing the share of liability through the discretion of the judge".It is necessary to review on the premise of complying with the legislative original intent and the scope of negotiorum gestio.In the scope of application,when there are occupational assistance,the rescuer has the wrong perception of danger,and the dangerous consequences can not be eliminated from the beginning,the provision of the rescuer’s exemption from liability should be limited from the beginning.In the external system,when the rule of emergency rescuer’s exemption from liability,self-defense and emergency risk aversion provisions form a normative concurrence,there is a systematic contradiction of the imputation standard.The provision that the recipient agrees beforehand or admits the application of entrustment afterwards is also in conflict with the rule of the rescuer’s exemption from liability.If the legislative process of"moral legalization"lacks systematic and technical support,it will inevitably lead to a heavy burden on hermeneutics.When the loophole can not be filled by interpretation,we should make a breakthrough in the original legislative intention.