论《民法典》视域下安全保障义务的边界——对第140、141号指导案例的理论回应

On the Boundary of Safety-Guard Duties in the Chinese Civil Code——Theoretical Response to Guiding Cases No.140 and No.141

第140、141号指导案例传递出最高人民法院限缩安全保障义务边界的态度,此举有利于减少安全保障义务泛化的现象。我国安全保障义务泛化的根源在于:我国学者将《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》上的经营者义务排他性地认定为侵权义务,抽离了安全保障义务背后的合同属性;又受德国法上“一般交往安全义务说”的影响,将安全保障义务扩张为侵权法上的一般注意义务。在比较法上,“一般交往安全义务说”系少数德国学者基于想象的英美过失侵权提出的一家之言,与各国侵权法的通行理念均不符。欲重构安全保障义务,需回归物件型与债因型义务的基本类别,并将其置于《中华人民共和国民法典》侵权责任编的结构中,明晰其在一般侵权与特殊侵权中的角色,明辨其与一般过错责任及“过错(推定)-无过错”归责体系的交错关系。

Guiding Cases No. 140 and 141 convey the Supreme Court’s attitude toward restricting safety-guard duty, which helps to correct the generalization of safe-guard duty. The root of its generalization lies in that, on the one hand, Chinese scholars exclusively identified the operator’s obligation in the Consumer Protection Law as a tortious duty, which removed the contractual nature of safety-guard duty. On the other hand, influenced by the “Allgemeine Verkehrspflichten” in German law, they expanded safety-guard duty into a general duty in tort law. However, the doctrine of “Allgemeine Verkehrspflichten” is just a statement by few German scholars based on their imagined tort of negligence.To reconstruct the safety-guard duty, it is necessary to restore it to the basic types based on debt and property. Furthermore, it is still required to place it in the structure of the Tort Liability Book to clarify its relationship with general fault liability and the “fault(presumption)-no fault” imputation system.